< 23 February	25 February >

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of Rose Funeral[edit]

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

I don't want to call it Wp:LISTCRUFT, but that's the only thing I can call this. Also, ALL this info is in the infobar for Rose Funeral (incidentally, that's up for the chop - see Wp:Articles for deletion/Rose Funeral). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's almost CSD A10, but not quite. I would've prodded it, but in this case it is sort of listcruft. It's already got an article. List of members of queen doesn't exist. (I know it isn't a valid reason, but if that would be considered non inclusive, this would be too) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a list of members separate from the band's article is unnecessary. RadManCF (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the material already in the band article -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as already mentioned. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The parent article has also been nominated for ((afd)), I've added this article to the nomination. Redundancy ftw. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Funeral. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 03:30, 27 February 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. Consensus appears to be failure of WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in third party independent secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteberg[edit]

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

Non-notable muical group. There are no non-trivial references in the article itself and I have not been able to find any reviews, articles or other reliable sources that would confirm notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not assert notability. RadManCF (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whiteberg are an obscure group of artistes; this is part and parcel of their mystique and also forms the basis of their attraction to fans. Such a fact would require their agents to be extremely selective when submitting work for review. That aside; because Whiteberg have been working on material for over 35 years; many pervious reviews, especially in the case of earlier albums, have been lost. Historically, reviews appeared in many discontinued fanzines and mail-art publications, such as 'At a Glance' by M. A. Longbottom[1] However, reviews, articles and other sources, have now been included in the account in order to confirm notability. Whiteberg are also well known and respected by several commonly known musicians, to which references can be provided; notably: Pete Dello, Julian Cope and Moritz Reichelt (founder member of Der Plan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.96 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity in no way hinders notability. Both Jandek and The Residents have no problems establishing notability. Ridernyc (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With the greatest respect, neither Jandek or The Residents can be described as obscure since their work is available at Amazon.com or indeed any large record store such as HMV Group, Tower Records or Virgin Megastores. JoshuaMoser (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To call a band non-notable, that has been seriously working for years, published a couple of albums AND proven to have a unique artistic position, is beyond my understanding of Wikipedia. What DO you call notable then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professortiki (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability in Wikipedia is defined by the consensus policy at WP:NOTABILITY. Specific guidelines for bands and musicisans is found at WP:BAND. In short, the guidelines suggest that the band must be the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works", have had a single of album on any country's national charts, produced a gold record, won a major award or major music competition, has produced music that has been placed in rotation by a major radio network, etc. If we can find sources that confirm this, the band meets notability standards of Wikipedia and should be kept. Notability must be verified by such sources. To quote from WP:MUSIC: "In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability." Wikipeterproject (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In accordance with WP Guide to deletion, I note the contribution in this debate of a new user, Professortiki. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are absolutely no sources to back up any of the claims, other than the band's website. As such, this fails WP:BAND. Most of the claims to any kind of notability stem from some vague association to notable artists who are cliamed to be supporters. Without third-party sources, none this is verifiable. If we removed all the unsourced claims, we wouldn't be left with much. Wikipedia cannot be used to establish notability. Unfortunately, some artists will always fly under the radar until someone picks up their cause. If in the future an unrelated person writes about them in a significant way, they could achieve some sort of cult notability. But right now we can only go by what's published. freshacconci talktalk 17:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless 3rd party reliable sources are found to back up any of the information on the article this is a delete. Right now we have nothing more then a guy who put out CDs on his own for decades. There also seems to be a pretty clear COI here. I would also like to take the time to ask that the author of this article stop creating new articles and stop spamming other articles. Ridernyc (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any spamming must have been completely unintentional. I am sure that the author was only responding to the 'Orphan' comment on the page. From his or her perspective, he or she was simply adding quite correct information to articles. JoshuaMoser (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable sources can be found, this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Clubmarx (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would seem, therefore, that notoriety or fame are the only criteria for entry. What ever happened to creativity, innovation and talent? JoshuaMoser (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews, other than on the bands website, have been provided in 'External Links.' JoshuaMoser (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are two of the keep !votes above from the same person? See this history showing edit by JoshuaMoser to !vote from 212.183.140.96. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing. Dlohcierekim 01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel that many of the 'Delete' remarks, here, have been made only in the interests of protocol, and not at all in the interests of wikipedia users. Please consider the idea that the status quo might need to be challenged, in order for us to move forward. Inability to deviate only results in stagnation: See the Barry Miles book; 'London Calling,' for reference to this notion. JoshuaMoser (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite JoshuaMosher's efforts, subject remains a band that has not been signed by a major label and otherwise does not meet WP:BAND. When people propose changing the rules so that their article of interest may be included, they have basically conceded that the article does not meet inclusion criteria. However, the article itself says the albums were "self-released". Wikiepdia policies are based on consensus rather than impassioned pleas and cries of "stagnation." Working hard for years they may have been. That effort does not equate to notability. One of the apologists above concedes they are "obscure," and calls the cause of the lack of sources their lengthy career. We now have access electronically to records going back in some cases for centuries. There is nothing at Google Books, Google Scholar, or Google News. 1983 is not so far back in time that we should not be able to find any trace of this band were it notable. I have the 1983 edition of The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll on my bookself. It is available on Google Books. In searching the 1983, 1995 and 2001 editions of The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll, there is no mention of the subject. Creativity, innovation and talent are often in the eye of the beholder, and it is true that notability is not always equated with those traits. As Encyclopedists, we do not judge on those terms; all we have is notability. That too is often in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion I am not seeing it at this time with this article. Dlohcierekim 01:20, 4 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Enciso[edit]

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

This article has been here since 2007, without anything to indicate what makes this art department worker notable. Woogee (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created by SPA account, who just recently blanked the article. There are literally thousands of designers who work in such projects, this does not make someone notable. -RobertMel (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:NOT. RadManCF (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability per WP:N or GNG. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:41, 25 February 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. Those favoring keep have established that there exist multiple reliable sources with significant discussion. It would be better if those sources were promptly added to the article, but that is not, strictly speaking, a requirement. Those favoring deletion, besides being less numerous, did not establish the lack of reliability of the cited sources. it is generally presumed that books published by independant publishers are relaibale, adn nothing was presented to show otherwise. DES ^(talk) 04:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Juego del Garrote[edit]

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

Contested prod. Was contested with the reasoning that it is "well known". It may be well known, but I can't find evidence that it is notable. Gnews returns only 1 hit that is about the art and that's talking about a guy who wrote a book. It's existence or popularity in Venezuela isn't being disputed. Notability is. Most ghits I reviewed where either non-reliable sources or mere definitions that tell what it is. I'm not finding the significant third party sources to get it past WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Article has been tagged as unsourced and an orphan for 3 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the copious sources found in Google Books ([2]), including an entire book on the subject ([3]), and at Google Scholar ([4]), for instance, an article in the socioanthropology journal Fermentum ([5]). Of course the article says that another name for it is garrote larense (as I mentioned when I de-prodded it) and that provides copious sources through Google Scholar ([6]), e.g., an article in the Journal of Sport History ([7]), and Google Books ([8]), e.g., in this bibliographic guide ([9]). Media articlea: [10], [11], [12]. Using Google is not that tough. Perhaps you should slow down on the prods and AfDs until you're better-positioned to check for sources on your own first, even if that means that your goal of "cleaning up the list of martial arts" might be delayed. You could also attempt to involve the martial arts project here. Finally, I commend WP:SOFIXIT to your attention. JJL (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something to complain about, take it to make talk page, where it belongs and don't clutter the AfD with it. This article has sat there for 3 years without a reliable source. Then when it got prodded (by a different editor), you just dismissed the prod with "it's well known", but didn't lift a finger to add a single reliable source. Then you have the nerve to start lecturing me about nominating it. Posting a google book search doesn't show notability. It could get mentioned in 1000 books, but that doesn't mean the coverage is significant, which is the standard. And the term isn't only used for the martial art. Nor does having an "entire book on the subject" automatically make it notable, unless you are going to contend that every published book is automatically notable. There is more to notability than simply being published. The depth of coverage and signifigance of the source is more of a factor than being able to find a mere mention or a book that ranks 8,405,380 at Amazon. If you have further personal gripes with me, take it to either my talk page or at least take it to the discussion page of this AfD.Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a book used as a source should itself be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete. This is a typical example of editor's claiming it isn't their problem. No, being unsourced for three years in unacceptable. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that is not the purpose of an AfD. See Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_not_for.3F.
Keep per JJL's sources. It's not a BLP, so being unsourced isn't a valid reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a reason. Why? Because WP:N, specifically WP:GNG requires (not suggests) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So if it is unsourced, the GNG is not met. Want something from the martial arts project? How about WP:MANOTE, which says: "Reliable sourcing is the most important factor. Assertions of notability must be sourced from somewhere other than the individual or organisation under discussion". It goes on to say: "A lack of any sources after looking around is a warning sign that an article may not be notable enough for inclusion.". Notability must come from significant coverage from reliable sources. No sources, no notability established. No notability=delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whether or not it's notable and whether or not it's sourced are different matters. The notability must be sourceable--not necessarily sourced. Of course that's desirable, but again, per Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_not_for.3F, it's not a reason for deletion. The issue at AfD is whether or not AfD can be shown--whether or not the subject is worthy of an article. After that, making it a good article is of course a good thing to do. You're mistaken, and you're misusing the AfD process. JJL (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misusing anything. You simply are having difficulty understanding that if there isn't a source, notability isn't demonstrated. Of course this is all a strawman diversion because the lack of sources isn't the reason given. The reason given is that it fails MANOTE and GNG because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. That it is tagged as unsourced is an add on sentence at the end. Table your open hostility for a minute (if you can) and actually read the nomination. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If significant sources reliable sources can be found and the article rewritten keep otherwise I vote delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been demonstrated above that a whole book has been published about this subject, as well as it having significant coverage in many other reliable sources. The Amazon rating of that book has absolutely no bearing on the notability of its subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me understand you correctly, if anyone writes a book about any topic, that topic is now notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that book is published by a reputable publisher, then yes. Where on earth did you get the idea that sources have to be notable, rather than reliable? If we had that requirement we would be led into an infinite regression whereby no subject could be shown to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you and I both know that people write books every year on obscure stuff that they find personally interesting and wanted to devote time to. Claiming that the mere existence of a book on ANY topic will automatically make that topic notable is not the least bit realistic. I know you are a hard-core inclusionist, but for someone of your experience to assert that any topic is going to be automatically notable is funny. We delete articles as non-notable on a daily basis that have coverage in a reliable source. The question is whether or not the coverage is significant. I have difficulty considering a book that nobody bothered to read being that significant. BTW, is the "Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria" a "reputable publisher"? Niteshift36 (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the general notability guideline: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". I don't see anything there about how many people have bothered to read the source. The "significant coverage" test is concerned with the depth of coverage of the subject, and the subject of a 70-page book, along with the other sources presented above, certainly passes that test. And, btw, the publisher is Federación Nacional de la Cultura Popular, not the Centro de la Cultura Popular Canaria. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you'd better tell Amazon they messed up, because that's the pulblisher they listed. And when the the Center of Popular Culture become a big reputable publisher? GNG also strongly suggests that more than one "significant source" be present. If one book was the desired standard, we wouldn't have a template pointing out that an article relies heavily on a single source, would we? One source is 1 POV. Saying that one book automatically makes something notable is really WP:ILIKEIT once removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As User:JJL explained above, and I have mentioned in my edits, this is not the only available source, but simply the one that provides the most coverage. The information about the publisher came from the source in the article itself, and can be confirmed from reliable sources such as Worldcat. I would advise that you use such reliable sources rather than commercial booksellers when evaluating sources. If you still insist that the subject is not notable could you please explain how the coverage in all of the sources presented does not amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, with the definitions of those terms used in the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJL sourcing and very sensible reasoning by Phil. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:06, 2 March 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. Concerns about paid editing, concerns about most of the sources being non-independent/spam/promo press releases, and concerns about failure of WP:NOTE, and lack of significant third party coverage. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez Negrete Communications[edit]

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

Article was created by User:Lopez Negrete Communications in 100% html code. Another editor without any edits, User:Cgiambi, removed all tags. I think the article is self-published and Wikipedia is not the place of self-promotion. Magioladitis (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copying a message from my talk page: I'm a third-party consultant outside of the company that contacted me to help them - as a favor - with legitimizing their entry. I have no ties to the company other than that. According to what I've read in the Wikipedia manual on Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) this entry follows all those guidelines. Everything in there is factual and cannot be negated - there are articles referenced there which prove that. The edits were made by myself and by my colleague MVelez (where you saw the 100%HTML code - there's no rule that says we cannot program the entry in HTML). This entry was NOT created for self-promotion - I wouldn't have done anything to do with it if it did. The company contacted me and MVelez to legitimize their web presence. This is no different than the entries for Walmart or Bank of America which are referenced in our entry. So, what can I do to keep you from deleting this? Help me with this please. Cgiambi (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but does "contacted" mean "hired"? Paid editing is strongly discouraged. (Even if no money changes hands, conflicts of interest can still occur.) At any rate, please leave the AFD tags on the page, you can make your case against deletion here. Hairhorn (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nope, contacted means contacted. There isn't any conflict of interest and as mentioned before, the article follows all guidelines for NPOV. Sorry, but I'm undoing your edit re: deletion due to AFD standards. I will admit, this is my first entry/edit and I am still getting used to the etiquette/format. I appreciate all help, but this page does not warrant deletion. Cgiambi (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the references and the notability of being the second-largest Hispanic PR company, but I have strong heartburn with Cgiambi's involvement. Woogee (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paid editing is advertising per se as far as I am concerned. And the "references" added, from what I can see of them, appear to be minor press releases announcing routine contracts[13], other press releases[14][15], or local trade coverage circulated in an aggregator of local business papers[16]. That stuff is not good enough for business notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press releases aside, the article does list other sources that profile the company. --Pink Bull 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I focused on the link from Advertising Age, the one which is cited in the article as verification for the claims of being the "second largest" agency with "capitalized billings of $164 million". The link does NOT support the claims made. The agency is actually listed as the fifth largest, and its billings are given as $24 million. That makes me suspicious of all the information in the article. Incidentally, the four larger agencies do not have Wikipedia entries. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 3 March 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 Timbaland & Magoo. and protect the redirect JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magoo (rapper)[edit]

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

I've tried to avoid this AfD, but can't seem to. The artist fails WP:MUSICBIO on his own. He did enjoy some success with Timbaland & Magoo. But all coverage I saw was never about him, it was either the much more notable Timbaland or about the duet. So far, he's failed to chart solo and failed to get significant amounts of coverage from reliable third party sources (except about the duet). I redirected the term (per WP:BEFORE) to the article about Timbaland and Magoo, but certain fans have kept removing the redirect. I explained to the fans on the talk page why, how it was preserving the term for later when he does become notable etc. and how to improve the article. Instead, it has gotten worse. So here we are. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not entirely sure what the policy is in this case, but Niteshift makes a good argument for deletion on pragmatic grounds. That the main editor (who seems to have an IP or two running after them) of the article said, on the talkpage, "i have no idea what you mean by unsourced," that is telling. If the subject is not notable by hisself, and if a redirect keeps getting turned into an unsourced BLP, then deletion seems to be the best anwer. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for those who haven't been involved, I explained that allexperts.com, amazon.com and answers.com aren't going to pass WP:RS, but those are the sort of "sources" the editor insists on using. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to be a copyright violation from NNDB.com, which suggests that at least the current content needs to be gotten rid of. (Note that other non-copyvio versions have existed in the article's history.) The rap duo he is one of the named members of is notable, so at a minimum a redirect to Timbaland & Magoo should be left here. I haven't been able to find a significant amount of biographical information about Magoo personally, though, so I can't say that it is necessary for him to have a separate article at this time. As sources for Magoo's biography are found, they can be added to the Timbaland & Magoo article until there is enough content there to warrant splitting it out to a separate article about Magoo alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: to Timbaland & Magoo, doesn't seem notable enough to warrant his own article. I have restored article to a good version. Mattg82 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the redirect is useful but the article inappropriate, another possible solution would be to protect the redirect fully and indefinitely. LadyofShalott 04:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection sounds fair. If he ever became notable enough, it could be easily removed.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we let the afd run its course? We can let that be an open possibility for the discussion. LadyofShalott 04:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't suggesting otherwise, just giving my view. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave the magoo page the way it is and let nature take its course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.121.29 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC) — 209.240.121.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is nature taking its course. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then the IP editor above decided to remove the deletion template....twice. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - All of the material that I can find is in relation to Timbaland and Magoo. With this article being and unsourced BLP and potentially a copyright violation, merging would not be appropriate. Development of a sourced biography at Timbaland and Magoo would make sense. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Just an also-ran sidekick rapper with no real success in his own right. — Gwalla | Talk 17:59, 25 February 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 G7 Author requested deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bosworth Field/map[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Battle of Bosworth Field/map

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

This is a larger version of a map (using Template:Location Map and File:England in the UK - Northumberland outlined.svg) that appears in the article Battle of Bosworth Field. There are no subpages in article space; this also violates the subpages guideline, specifically fitting disallowed use 3: "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." I'm not sure if there's a more appropriate part of the Wiki this could be moved to, however. –Grondemar 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go ahead and delete this. I don't think wikimedia has the capability to do what I was trying to do. Normally, when looking at an image, you can click it and it'll take you to the image page where you can possibly see a higher resolution version. However, since the image in this case isn't a real image but rather a generated image created by a template, clicking on the image doesn't show a higher resolution of the battle field complete with marks, it simply shows a blank map of England. I wanted to create a higher resolution version of the "image" (as displayed in the article, the one created by the template) on the article page, but in such a way that a person could click it and be taken to this page, where clicking the image would then take them to the blank England map file. However, when I tried to transclude this page in a sized and floated div on the main article page, it simply overran the boundaries I'd set out for it. I don't think what I wanted to do is possible at this time, so just delete it. If people want to see a higher resolution version, they can do what I did and copy/paste the template text on some other page. Banaticus (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Already deleted per G7. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:30, 25 February 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. (NAC) Swarm^(Talk) 02:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westcountry Derby[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, focusing on a limited number of football matches from recent years. Heavily tainted by POV language/comments. Also, most of the references to "Westcountry derby" on google are about rugby, not football so I don't believe this is a phrase commonly used in a football context. I don't see what value it adds to Wikipedia and therefore suggest it is deleted. Simple Bob (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of GNews hits here for "West country derby" being used in an association football context. Article definitely needs tidying up, though, starting with moving to the correct title with "West Country" shown as two words, not one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - As someone who supports one of the clubs associated with this article, I feel qualified to say that the term is well used. However, it needs plenty of work in my opinion. It comes across a bit POV and is heavily weighted towards recent history, not to mention going off the subject; Dean Windass didn't play for any club based in the West Country, yet he is included because of a one-off game. Information is inaccurate and its completely unreferenced. I might be a Plymouth Argyle supporter but even I can admit that the most "intense" derby is between Bristol City and Bristol Rovers. I respect the editors enthusiasm but he/she could learn alot from similar articles. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 21:13, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Martin's The Midnight Hour[edit]

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

Non-notable TV program which only airs on one local cable network. Woogee (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in secondary sources. One local media story, otherwise hits are all Facebook, YouTube etc. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this local show. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem is Back[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:MUSIC, this is unofficial, non-notable bootleg album that has not had significant coverage. The article has been deleted before. Karppinen (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G4 and SALT. Been deleted once as non-notable, G4'd in the second afd. Why are we even here, other than to ask for the salt shaker? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally speedied it, mistakenly thinking it was AFD'd only once. That's why some admin declined speedy and suggested new AFD. Yes... WP:SALT just might be appropriate for this. Karppinen (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as "[r]ecreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". Season to taste as undead zombie that will not stay dead. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G4 and salt. It was a unofficial mixtape the last two times, and it won't change just because someone keeps recreating it.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, salt and move on. Still not notable, nothing's changed. Nothing more to see here. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, G4. No idea why the G4 was declined. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:NALBUMS "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources, which seeing there is no references at all, there aren't even close to enough reliable sources, there are none. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per notability concerns noted above. This article, such as it is, actually appears to be expanded and improved from the previously deleted version, so G4 does not necessarily apply, but a quick delete per WP:SNOW may be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete AbbaIkea2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Norton[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability for this editor and web personality, no google hits, no information independent of the source. Furthermore, it reads like a personal website. EeepEeep (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notible internet personality and a regular panelist on TWiT. Random Time 23:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though none of the sourcing is reliable and nothing to write a biography from. But he's a host on TechTV, that's good enough for me. Woogee (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notable and visible tech journalists around with time at TechTV, ZDNet and Revision3, there's no doubt that notability is easily met. Nate • (chatter) 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mrschimpf. --Falcorian ^(talk) 13:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep Was a presenter on TechTV for years. Notability does not expire. This really looks to be a bad-faith nom IMO. DarkAudit (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I used this wikipedia article to track down what he is doing nowadays. 15:43, 28 February 2010.
Strong Keep Well known and linked to other articles.Paxton 22:49, 1 March 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. Those favoring keep cited additional sources to indicate historic interest and therefore notability. Those favoring delete made no persuasive response to this. The issue with the other place of the same name in Cumbria can be solved by editing, perhaps including copying content from the history of this article with proper attribution. DES ^(talk) 06:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newby Head[edit]

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

no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I normally favor keeping real places, but this is a house. If there were an article at Newby Head Pass, I would recommend merging to that, but there isn't. And what is that link supposed to be proving? Woogee (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There actually is some coverage of this house, mostly from books [17][18], the latter stating the inn was "popular with drovers."--Oakshade (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was originally written about the place, perhaps incorrectly described as a settlement, rather than the house, and should be returned to being about that subject, which, judging by the Google Books results linked above, is clearly notable. It can then include information about the inn (which I'm glad to read was clean and respectably conducted), the pass, the farm, the sources of rivers and anything else that is covered by reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different places, in different counties. If both are notable, there should be separate articles (although the place in Cumbria probably only needs a redirect or a hatnote, as it doesn't appear to be a separate village, and the house in Yorkshire probably only needs a mention in an article about Newby Head Pass, Newby Head Moss or the parish it is in). snigbrook (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that the original article about the place in Cumbria has been hijacked to be about the place in Yorkshire. It would be helpful if the nominator could say which of these this discussion is supposed to be about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The North Yorkshire location. Ironholds (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might help if somebody explained what country it's in. Woogee (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context has now been added. snigbrook (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per sources procured by User: Oakshade. Inn was notable at one time.--Pink Bull 13:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello. i dont so any problem with this newby head page or newby head pass page. you lot are going over the top with this!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezberesford (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 March 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 per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T.I.'s seventh studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/T.I.'s seventh studio album

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

A disputed PROD. A fairly clear application of WP:TenPoundHammer's Law and, as per WP:MUSIC, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also as per WP:MUSIC, time enough for this album if and when the album is titled and released. A useful quote from WP:NALBUMS: "[G]enerally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Accounting4Taste:talk 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:HAMMER. What else do I need to say at this point? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Being the creator of the article, I have a strong opinion to keep this article based on the fact that all information given is cited by a reliable source. TenPoundHammer's Law states that "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known." This is an exception. Accounting4Taste said on the album's talk page that the sources presented were not reliable to pass off the article. Which does not make any sense considering that MTV is one of the most used websites for music information and is most likely used on 99% of all notable album articles. There is no reason for Crystal Ball to affect anyone's judgement because although it may not be titled, the album is confirmed to be in the process of recording. Co-founder of T.I.'s record label, Jason Geter, even tells MTV that the album has a summer release. There are articles with less information presented that are not being put up for deletion including Lemar's 5th Studio Album, Ghost, Z², Love King, and multiple others. If an album title WAS presented what would change besides the page name, infobox, and leading sentence? Nothing. An article should not have to have an official name to be reliable. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 00:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I don't think that the meager sources are enough to warrant a whole article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, how many sources are needed to confirm an album? Because if four reliable sources don't cut it, I wanna know how many will. (Not to mention two of those sources cite statements made from Grand Hustle Records and UMG.) SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Well Mr. Hammer, I decided to check out MULTIPLE other places to get some sources. VH1 XXL Magazine Prefix Magazine Prefix Magazine (again...) Trap Muzik (T.I.'s OFFICIAL site) BET. Is that enough sources to prove that this album is confirmed? SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 05:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This album will likely become notable when it gets closer to release, but at this time there is no confirmed track listing, no album title and no release date. Very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources; too much crystalballing to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Adding the few sources of this article to T.I.'s main page seems appropriate enough for now. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources are plentiful. A clearly notable future event. --Pink Bull 15:30, 3 March 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. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Woolly Bandits[edit]

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

Obscure band, only claim to fame is that one of its members was in a Michael Jackson video once. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Chowbok ☠ 19:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are incidental, notability is thin. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:24, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stooges 'Detroit Rehearsal' tapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Stooges 'Detroit Rehearsal' tapes

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

Article on demos with sources that are not credible and links that do not pass WP:EL (e.g. a message board.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep The main source seems to be a book about the Stooges. The other sources seem to be supplemental. I don't have access to the book itself to verify the inclusion of the quoted material, and unfortunately the citation doesn't list page numbers. It would be difficult to resurrect if deleted since the main source is not an on-line source. Also, I'm going to assume good faith by the creator of the article. Vampyrecat (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or relist 9,001 more times. Only one source isn't enough to carry an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tiger and the Duke. Merged by User:Doomsdayer520 (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger and the Duke demos[edit]

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

Non-notable demos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Tiger and the Duke. The existence of demo versions of some of the same songs would be of historical interest in the article for the later studio album (assuming the info is verifiable). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since no one else has voted or commented in last 18 days, I am doing the merge/redirect. This AfD can be closed with that result. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:47, 28 February 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. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Chiriliuc[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians. Neelix (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publio Arjona Diaz[edit]

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

This was tagged for speedy deletion, however their is a claim to notability. Taking here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Chambers International Outstanding Young Persons of the World 2005[19]Opbeith (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a good guy, but article does not make a claim for Wikipedia-notability. --Pink Bull 16:24, 3 March 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. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Foreign Policy[edit]

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

Seems a rather non-notable organization. Most of the material in this article is sourced to their own web site. Brief mentions in the news is all I can find, and most are due to Robert Naiman being cited as one of their analysts (he doesn't seem incredibly notable either, and the wiki article seems to be about a different person). Pcap ping 20:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing substantial coverage of this organization. --Pink Bull 02:28, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box on the ear[edit]

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

This is a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I turned it into a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but the article creator reverted so I am bringing it here. The phrase "box on the ear" is not something about which an article can be written, I believe.

If anyone has sources on the topic (aside from a free online dictionary) they could use them in the article Corporal punishment. Fences&Windows 21:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not dict CTJF83 GoUSA 09:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:37, 26 February 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. Concerns about WP:NOTE and significant third party coverage. Cirt (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Biblical Studies in India[edit]

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

This is a non-notable society. There is no significant third party coverage - the two quotes in the article about the society are, in fact, by past presidents. StAnselm (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete: In favour of keeping this article, the society is one of a number of small theological societies in India, having been formed in 1963, and seemingly having met almost every 2 years from 1964 to 1998 (the article is based on a 1998 source, and meetings in fact seem to have continued). Against keeping this article, it does not seem to have any of the usual indicators of an academic society: it has no web site, publishes no journal, and has membership limited "by approval of the Managing Committee," seemingly to a few dozen, if the photographs in this and related articles are a guide. I can find no traces on Google except for this conference (which seems to have been primarily sponsored by the institution hosting the page), some mentions of the society in material about people who happen to be members, and a 6-page report by the society in a book from the St. Peter's Pontifical Institute of Theology. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The society does publish a journal. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, the article should certainly have said that, and that would be enough for me to change my vote to "keep." However, this site suggests the journal pre-dates the society, and has a different publisher. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the editor listed, V. C. Samuel doesn't seem to have an relationship with the Society for Biblical Studies in India. On the other hand, papers read at the SBSI conferences certainly do get published in that journal. StAnselm (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, some papers read at the SBSI conferences are published in that journal, and some elsewhere, which suggests that there is no formal connection. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the fact that papers read at the SBSI conferences are published may be enough to make the society notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed they've continued to publish papers. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching without the "in India" seems to turn up a few more potential sources: Google Books; Google Scholar. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the same society, the article lead should include a phrase like: (also known within India simply as the Society for Biblical Studies). -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those references don't seem to say much, other than that the Society does hold meetings, and that ten papers from its 1983 meeting were published in the Indian Journal of Theology. It doesn't necessarily follow that they've stopped publishing in that journal, though: Google Scholar indexing of that journal seems to stop around 1984. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this society should not be confused with the other Society for Biblical Studies. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the society has now appeared on another online encyclopedia. It seems our article is out of date on where papers are published. It also seems that the society has exactly 15 members, which makes it, I fear, less than notable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that article seems to be a mirror of an older version of this article, deleted from Wikipedia in 2007. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING to those doing web searches on this topic: the www.seramporecollege.org website, which comes up repeatedly, seems to be malware-infected. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can always be re-created later if it re-emerges. Codf1977 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 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. NAC Swarm^(Talk) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of numerical analysis software[edit]

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

Several violations including: WP:LINKFARM, WP:ELNO, WP:LINKSPAM Jwesley₇₈ 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Jwesley₇₈ 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ——Korath (Talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This looks legitimate on its face. Why won't simple removal of entries without articles suffice? —Korath (Talk) 21:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons:

The inclusion criteria is overly broad: "programs used for performing numerical calculations". This would include Excel, Quicken, etc.... See WP:LSC
The list has devolved into "anything related to math and computers", including developer libraries and programming languages. Thus, it's just a "link farm". WP:LINKFARM
There are numerous external links that should all be removed (especially if they point to commercial software). See WP:LINKSPAM
Of the entries that do have articles, I believe most have questionable notability.
Looking at the talk page you can see that the purpose of this page is not clear. A couple editors have asked what appropriate to include. (added)Jwesley₇₈ 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jwesley₇₈ 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this list is of limited utility considering that is a category for Numerical software. Jwesley₇₈ 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, this is not a valid problem. It's covered in WP:LISTPURP. Jwesley₇₈ 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be appropriate to merge this article with Comparison of numerical analysis software. Jwesley₇₈ 22:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many entries have articles here. Just remove the non-notable ones. Per WP:CLN having a category is not a reason to delete this list. Spreadsheets have their own list (and separate category), so that's a non-issue as well. Nominate articles that fail WP:N individually, nominating this list won't get those articles deleted either. Merging it with the "Comparison..." article, which really is a list in table format, is probably a good idea, because that one seems to have fewer items, but there's no need to start an AfD for that, just merge it and redirect. Pcap ping 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Merging is probably the best option. Jwesley₇₈ 22:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune. The arguments above seem to point to a pruning of the list to remove the non notable products (those lacking at least one independent non-trivial reliable source). It does seem to be the case that the list does add value over a category, as just the names would not help identify the software for specific purposes. There does seem to be some overlap with List of numerical libraries and I'd sugest reoving those entries which are libraries rather than free standing software. --Salix (talk): 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article says "computer programs used for performing numerical calculations"; as Jwesley says, that could include anything from Mathematica to Windows Calculator. I'd say keep if there were reasonable criteria here but as it is it's just indiscriminate information. If you restricted to programs with Wikipedia articles then how is it an advantage over Category:Numerical software? I'm not saying delete because I'm not convinced these problems are insurmountable, but it appears that some more thought should go into the purpose of the article and how inclusion criteria should be defined before it meets WP standards.--RDBury (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove non-notable software per Pohta ce-am pohtit. A merger with Comparison of numerical analysis software would also be acceptable as a second option. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While all software by their very construct perform "numerical analysis" to run, there are some that are specifically designed for this task. I suggest a cleanup, removing non-notable software and narrowing the scope of the list. Smallman12q (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as necessary. Nom is uncompelling and incompatible with previous similar discussions. No objection to a merge per above. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article is very useful, but would remove non-notable packages. Derek farn (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its contents should be merged into Comparison of numerical analysis software and the pure list nature of this page should be replaced by Category:Numerical software. That is what Categories are for isn't it? JonMcLoone (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except this isn't a "pure list." The list elements are sorted and summarized, which is not possible with a category. After Jwesley78's cleanup, this really isn't that bad of a list. I'd have no qualms for a merge and redirect to the software comparison article, but that is a far cry from "delete" & this should NOT be deleted. --Karnesky (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is useful list.--Tim32 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Comparison of numerical analysis software. I think it is valuable to have a list of software packages to do numerical analysis with, especially because computers have become so important in so many different fields using applied numerical analysis. The functional difference between this page and the other one is lost on me though. DSP-user (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i found it really useful, like others lists (e.g. list of UML tools). I wrote minor edits after a long search about math software for PDAs and teaching, because i thought "it can avoid stressful searches for others users". (sorry for my bad englih) --Pier4r (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think such a list is useful, especially in the sciences where this kind of software is often the bedrock of the main job of data analysis. A list is not linkspam (of course links should be to wikip articles and any actual linkspam should be removed from the page). DSP-user's suggestion to merge may be good. --mcld (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Certainly in need of work, but with clean up looks like it would be useful enough. Ian¹³ /t 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters#Jitsu. SilkTork *^YES! 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jitsu (Masters of the Universe)[edit]

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

A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge the stuff attributable to He-Man.org interview. The fansite oafe.net does not seem a reliable source as I explained in another AfD for this series. Pcap ping 06:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable characater, lacks real-world notability and non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. (Fansites are generally not considered to be reliable sources.) JBsupreme (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge adequately. An examination of the article proposed to merge to is the sort of merge that gives insufficient information, and is not adequate. It would be better to keep that to lose information in this fashion--information that is verifiable, being based as it should be on the fiction itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He-man.org is not a reliable source as it is a fansite WP:FANSITE and its been debated whether its reliable [20] and neither is Oafe.com [21] or for that matter, mattycollector.com [22]

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this one is particular memorable (yes, I even had/have...it somewhere and definitely thought it cool as a child as I am sure many other did too!). We can see that he is real and from a notable franchise. No reason exists (I don't like it is not a real reason) for not following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. We do not need to at worst protect the public from redirects with edit history intact. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is has not whether I like the subject or not. The issue I have is that there is no reliable sources found to verify notability. Plus you and many who have argued that such in this case that it has sources but have not specified which one is of any use. You and many inclusionist seem to ignore "The main purpose of the requirement to have all articles and information contained within sourced (WP:V) is to prove that everything is true and accurate. But the mere existence does not automatically make a subject worthy of inclusion." Dwanyewest (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like it, otherwise you wouldn't be trying so hard to destroy it. WP:V has been met, it a policy which is required. The other thing you link to is just an essay, someone's opinion, anyone able to make those things, and they not mattering at all since no matter what it is, there is always an essay somewhere that says the exact opposite. Dream Focus 07:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By spending a few brief moments clicking the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and changing the() to "", I got nine results. [23] The first is coverage of the toy in Action Figure Insider. [24] Gainesville Sun - Dec 2, 1984 listed it as one of the toys that were so popular they were selling out, having a picture of it in their article. "Only the luckiest Santas will bag the season's top toys" [25]. Dream Focus 07:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list Despite being an extremely minor character, the sources which have come to light here can be used to tie some real-world information to the character's entry on the characters list. What's verifiable, not excessive plot detail etc. etc. certainly doesn't require an individual article though. Someone another 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters. Article has no encyclopedic text. Blast Ulna (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage in secondary sources. Redirect if you want, but there is no Jitsu disambiguation page. "Masters of the Universe" in the name means that that is where lookers will look anyway. --Bejnar (talk) 01:32, 6 March 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 Bing_(search_engine)#Legal_challenges waggers (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeraByte Unlimited[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:CORP. Also nominating their products:

Image for Windows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). (Nomination is withdrawn for this one.) Note that a far more notable product with the same name, but different purpose exists, by Scion. It does not have a page here though.
BootIt Next Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Another product of this company.

Pcap ping 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; I find at least "Image for Windows" in the top ten products, in this review [26], and in other software websites. --SF007 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a couple of reviews for that one [27] [28], so withdrawing it from this nomination. Pcap ping 21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TeraByte Unlimited. fails the notability requirements of WP:ORG. There is no significant coverage in non-trivial, reliable secondary sources. I'd argue the deletion of both products on similar grounds. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interesting enough this company has sued Microsoft over the "Bing" trademark because BootIt Next Generation abbreviates to "bing". The coverage is rather brief though. Pcap ping 23:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Redirect - as per Pcap. They might be trying to spam Wikipedia through an SPA (as evident from this contrib log [29]), but notoriety is still a form of notability under WP:GNG. ~~We'll just have to change the focus of the article.~~ I've already put a ((subst:uw-spam4im)) on the SPA's talk page for putting external links in various articles (which is what WP:SPAM recommends). If he chooses to continue his behaviour we'll be forced to block him as, again, per WP:SPAM. Oh the irony... Smocking (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After more digging: redirect to Bing (search engine). Since they were only the last of a bunch of companies to sue Microsoft over the Bing name, there is not enough coverage to warrant their own article. I suggest we make a section about the three lawsuits which also mentions the TeraByte Unlimited case in the Bing article (the guardian article is a reliable reference) and then redirect this article there. The irony just keeps on building... Smocking (talk) 21:10, 24 February 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. Insufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MUME[edit]

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

Coverage of this game appears to be limited to a single review at The Mud Connector [30]; I'm not sure if we're accepting this as a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Marasmusine (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, and the statistics in the article confirm non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)*:[reply]
It's not clear to me what "early offspring" means, but possibly merge to DikuMUD? Pcap ping 11:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wayback Machine archives of http://last-outpost.com/LO/historicallist.html, cited in the article, list thirteen earlier DikuMUDs that were still running as of January 2004. Given the high attrition rate of muds in general, let alone after twelve and a half years, it's very probable that there were many, many others released prior to it as well. I don't think a merge to DikuMUD is reasonable on this basis. —Korath (Talk) 14:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete then. A single self-published source is not enough for WP:N in my view, even if it qualifies as an expert per WP:SPS. This is in line with outcomes for many other software based on similar sources. Pcap ping 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Raph Koster is an expert in online games; being mentioned by him is reliable independent sourcing. Note that we've gone through and cleaned off most muds as NN. While this level of sourcing may seem inadequate, it is actually pretty good for an online, non-commercial game. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, "So a bunch of titles you've never heard of like Mortal Conquest and MUME for doing such interesting things with player conflict..." That's it. Hardly the stuff of WP:GNG. As a citation, it's suitable for a section on Koster's influences, but thats it. Marasmusine (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to disagree, but this gets into a more fundamental discussion of "How should we cover individual M*'s in Wikipedia?" which seems a better question for Wikiproject Video Games than an individual AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For some background into how MUDs are/were treated by Wikipedia, please see the Edge article - Can Games Survive History? and the associated discussion at WT:VG. - hahnch e n 22:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. treated the same as any other topic. I thought it was interesting how there was a big hoo-hah-hah about us literally erasing all traces of MUD history, as though Wikipedia was physically the only place to publish such information. Perhaps if there was more interest in writing and publishing books on MUDS with extensive coverage on particular games, there would be something for us to actually cite. Marasmusine (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mention in a book [31]. Tons of self-published reviews [32], [33] for example. [34] might be reliable, I can't tell. weak keep. Given the nature of the beast, I think we're well served to keep information on the topic as 'important people' think it's important... Hobit (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible that there may be more coverage in this book. Can someone check it out? Pcap ping 00:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list of SOME libraries holding the book Pcap recommends. (Other libraries may have it.) None near me unfortunately. The 2nd edition of this book can be had cheaply (e.g. Amazon Marketplace, "NetGames2" but there's, unsurprisingly, no 'search inside'). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would think relisting a debate for a third week a waste of time, but since there is an issue here with locating a book that may help decide the outcome, I'm going ahead in the hopes that somebody will find this book. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google snippet view shows the extent of this coverage: one mention on page 79, noting that it is one of several games that "simulates Tolkein's world of Middle Earth." This is not significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial mentions from any potentially reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect to have a copy of the book referred to above in the next week. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or not. Interlibrary loan hasn't gotten it yet and I'm leaving town today. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to wait for someone to take a look at the book. --Joe Decker (ta*lk) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel this is notable, in part due to the longevity of the MUD, and in part due to the tools that have crept up around it. If WP:GNG is not consensus, this can be transwikied to http://mud.wikia.com/wiki/MUD_Wiki . Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 03:47, 2 March 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. Closing per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzie[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet music notability or general notability guidelines. The sources given do not appear to be reliable sources. A search of google news archive brings up nothing. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how external resources, links to itunes, links to reviews from various sources are not seen as reliable sources. If the band has legitimate sources for their music. (CD purchase, iTunes/Zune/Rhapsody downloads, and has shown activity continuously for over 10 years, how does the fact that they are not "news" turn them from legitimate band to lacking notability? music notability Perhaps I am not understanding something here. I will read more, study more, and add more external reviews to establish a fact that Buzzie exists, has existed for 10 years, performed in 2009 at a festival in Orange County and *is* notable. Thanks. --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacofearth (talk • contribs)

Keep. Blue Cartoon and Cotton Mather are both notable, and this band has three members from those bands, therefore passing WP:BAND criterion 6. A merge to a section in the Cotton Mather article may be best if this can't be expanded.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see how having three members from notable bands meets criterion 6. There's nothing indicating that the musicians are independently notable--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the spirit of criterion 6 if perhaps not the wording. If we have a band whose members are/were significant members of other clearly notable bands, that's a strong indication of notability. The band should be covered somewhere, even if that's within one of the previous band articles.--Michig (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Okay, well as far as judging the notability of individual members I was going by the paragraph after the criteria, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.". I suppose you may be defining notability as something different though. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having members of an otherwise notable band is the only way they could possibly come up to snuff at this point; there're just plain no sources. Clearly no one cares about this article's condition, as it's been relisted thrice now without anyone !voting either way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:23, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Martin[edit]

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

Fails WP:Artist, as this person has not made any significant contributions to their field nor are they widely referenced and regarded within their field. The sources do not indicate notability, most hardly have a mention of the artist. Simply because the artist displays their artwork in a gallery does not indicate notability. Most edits come from the same user, I suspect this is a fan of the person in question, and the article still falls far short of being classified as fancruft. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I've been asked to comment as a contributor to this article. I basically just subbed and wikified it and I think it may well fail WP:N, but I am in no position to judge that. So I have no interest really in it staying or going, I just wikified it a bit. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST. The external links don't throw up anything that supports WP:N. The Cape Cod Times looks like the most reliable offline source. If it's a profile of the artist, or even a review, I might change my vote. But not if it's just an exhibition announcement e.g. [35].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as things stand. Links to New American Paintings Magazine and Light Leaks Magazine go to a cover page with no mention of the artist. Possibility of keeping per WP:HEY. Ty 10:25, 27 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 1 Playlist[edit]

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

WP:DIRECTORY. Regurgitates the radio 1's playlist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a topic which can be appropriately covered in the main BBC Radio 1 article. I don't see the value in reproducing the Radio 1 playlist and, as was suggested in June 2009, there are potentially copyright concerns. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the fact that Radio 1 has a playlist is already covered at BBC Radio 1 and the actual list can be found on the station's website and doesn't need to be reproduced here. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:47, 25 February 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) 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snurricane[edit]

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

A prod tag has been repeatedly deleted and replaced on this article. Per WP:CONTESTED, once a prod tag is removed, even if in bad faith, it should not be re-added; therefore, I have removed the prod tag and am procedurally listing it here. The most recent prod rationale was "Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO."

I am neutral for now. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to snowmageddon. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dictionary content. Maybe merge to snowmageddon, but that, too, is dictionary content which should likely not be there. Addionne (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. No consensus for usage, not used in major news sources; article is mostly original research on which portmanteau is more applicable to the situation (eg: "snurricane" vs "snownado"). At least "snowmageddon" has been used in mainstream media more than once? Tehae (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of significant coverage, not even enough to justify the suggested redirect. Even if there were significant coverage it would still have to go because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson, my searches have given me the same sense. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this minor neologism which completely lacks references. —C.Fred (talk) 06:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be retitled/rewritten to read Snow Hurricane, which is a true weather situation when winds exceed 70mph during a snow storm. —g29115 (talk) 15:43, 01 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That would probably be as difficult to verify as the existing article. For example, The Weather Network examines the difference between a "hurricane" and a "winter storm", noting verifiable differences in composition and behaviour. Even Wikipedia's own article on Hurricanes/Tropical cyclones points out it takes sustained winds of over 74mph, among other things, to classify a storm as a hurricane. The only reference I can find to "70mph winds qualify any storm as a hurricane" is Associated Content, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source (user submitted, no references necessary). I'm not so sure the article can even stand on its own two legs under "snow hurricane," considering the weather it discusses does not qualify as a hurricane and most sources covering the storms are using "snow hurricane" in a sensational/joking manner. (Although there have been actual hurricanes where snow was involved, eg: 1804 Mid-Atlantic Hurricane, a bit of quick research makes me think that "snow hurricane" doesn't yet merit its own article). Tehae (talk) 22:02, 1 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blinkumentary[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Not enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: you beat me to it. The film does not currently have a release date, but fans widely acknowledge that it will release soon after the next blink-182 album in late 2010 or 2011 says it all really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although it sounds fun. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 25 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Screwed: Selected Columns[edit]

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

Article is one sentence long, has no sources, and no notability noted, even after request for both for over six months now. N2e (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator, support deletion unless it is notably sourced. As is, not notable. N2e (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is already mentioned at the author's article, Carl Hiaasen, and - without reliable sources - that'll have to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:26, 24 February 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 Deleted, per CSD A3. Nakon 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to beat the world of chaos in kingdom hearts 1[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a How To Guide Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Gobonobo ^T ^C 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with haste per WP:HOWTO. There really should be a speedy for these. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. noq (talk) 20:34, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priority information aproach[edit]

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

OR and an essay, not valid as an article here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The language could use some cleanup, as well, but the topic itself does not appear notable, and that's the key concern. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. First off, it's misspelled; it should be "Priority information approach". Secondly, finding any good sources to prove its notability will be difficult - it generates minimal Ghits and there are no scholarly articles free online, nor are there any books on the topic. Perhaps it is just too new a topic for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 25 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westbourne Circus[edit]

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

This article is about a band that does not meet the criteria for notability. There isn't much in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. One of the cited references in property week is rather insubstantial, and refers to a gig done to promote a property development that was being done by the band's founder who happens to be the property developer. My own searches turn up no additional coverage. Whpq (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC

Delete - Just a promotional thing... doesn't need this page. RanJayJay (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam is a plague. — Gwalla | Talk 18:01, 25 February 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. The author created several such (deleted) articles and keeps ignoring messages in his talk page - Altenmann >t 21:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trigonometry circulant[edit]

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

(a) Wikipedia is not a textbook; (b) this is unreferenced and appears to be original research. PROD contested by author. Same article also posted at A trig identity for c matrix (which I will redir, then nominate for speedy as an implausible redirect). I42 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 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 all to List of Pokémon characters. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kanto Gym Leaders[edit]

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

Like its sister article about Johto gym leaders, this is non notable WP:GAMECRUFT; though the games where these characters appear are notable, they do not merit articles of their own, as evidenced by the fact that from the only 3 characters with "main" articles about themselves, one in fact redirects to List of characters in the Pokémon anime series and the other two (Brock and Misty) are notable because of the TV series, not the games. I am also nominating the following related pages because these related articles are just as notable as this one (that is, not notable enough for inclusion at all):

GSMR (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Nifboy (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon characters#Kanto. This has been coming for a long time. But one question. Why were Hoenn and Sinnoh Gym Leaders not AfD'ed also? What makes them any different? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wasn't aware they existed. I'll AfD those too, thanks. GSMR (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Redirect all per Bws2cool. ~~I vote the same for all the lists in question.~~ Granted each one should be sourced as much as possible, so that in the end we have more than simple little lists of bosses. -WarthogDemon 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to add information and sources to the list being merged to? I think their list entries should be short and simple with no need for sources. Unless we are going to just trim the info and make a paragraph of info instead of a few sentences. The Elite Four had pharagraphs of info, but eventually it got cut down. It just isn't needed. Wikipedia isn't the place for detailed information. Their roles in the games, anime, and manga goes on the side with the real world info being the main course; The development and reception. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, just the additions of more sources if possible. I'm not suggesting we add 10 paragraphs of gamecruftic bibliographies per leader. Sorry for the confusion. -WarthogDemon 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubting that the lists they will be merged to will have much information. So really, they won't need sourcing. I think that the Gym Leaders and E4 should get a whole list to themselves named Pokémon League or something. Then they could have full paragraphs. It made List of Pokémon characters really big though. So that wasn't very good. We just need to find some sources that go over Gym Leaders or Elite Four, so it would be notable. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh . . . I see. Then simply redirect per you then. -WarthogDemon 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware before how to list multiple related articles for deletion. The others now have ((subst:afd1|List of Kanto Gym Leaders)) and their discussions redirect to here. GSMR (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the various region that they're from (I'm half-surprised that this hasn't already been done). I can't vouch for other people, but if I wanted this sort of information, I'd go to Bulbapedia. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have said transwiki to Bulbapedia too, only chances are the subject matter is already thoroughly covered there. GSMR (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content on these pages are most likely taken from pages on Bulbapedia. lol _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to something more suitable. This isn't Bulbapedia and there doesn't need to be a massive amount of details, but a short concise article for the leaders as a whole can't go wrong, especially with notability TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that you would support a List of Pokémon Gym Leaders or Pokémon League article if most of the information was cut down and sourced? I am going to try and make better Gym Leader and Elite Four entries in my userspace at User:Bws2cool/Pokémon League. It might take a long while to get through all of them, but I think it will be worth it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, look! Reception on Gym Leaders! Sure, it may not be much, but its a start! *keeps looking* _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame that this IGN source isn't written from a real-world perspective, otherwise it might've been of some encyclopedic value. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 17:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pokémon characters and add Bulbapedia link to external links. I'm sure this info is useful to some, but keep it summarized here and give them a link where more info can be obtained. --Teancum (talk) 12:37, 4 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generic laptop[edit]

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

References provided are blogs, message boards, or similarly unreliable sources. Rest is original research. I'm not seeing how this could expand beyond a dictionary definition. RadioFan (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we want to permit articles about each individual product that happens to have a no-name or store brand, delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks like wandering original research not supported by reliable sources. The subject itself doesn't appear to be individually notable. — Rankiri (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- not a notable encyclopedia concept. Appears to be OR around a dictionary definition. N2e (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The topic might be notable, but this article is just WP:ARTSPAM, just check links. I've removed one that had no contents whatsoever besides a truckload of SEO words. Pcap ping 11:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Pretty much a dictionary definition of the word "generic" when used with laptops... Airplaneman ^talk 05:42, 28 February 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 History of erotic photography for now. While several sources were introduced during this debate, they have not been used to expand the article, which is currently only sourced to "Lighting Techniques for Fashion and Glamour Photography". Basically a keep, but with no verified content whatsoever in the current article, it seems best to redirect it until someone actually wants to bother writing a proper article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-nude pornography[edit]

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

Not notable; has never had any sources, I can't find any sources. Prezbo (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unnecessary amateur fork of Erotic photography. The term has no results in Google Books/News/Scholar. — Rankiri (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prezbo CTJF83 GoUSA 21:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of thousands of Google hits. Moreover, I found four sources using Google Scholar that indicate this to be a phenomenon:

1. Albright, Julie. (2005). “Lolita Online: Sex and under-aged smoking on the Internet.” International Journal of Critical Psychology, June. The under-aged girls appearing on these sites all appear clothed, yet these images may still be considered pornographic: U.S. case law in the United States vs. Knox case stated that images showing “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” including non-nude depictions which are meant to be sexually exciting can be considered child porn (MSNBC.com, 2002). [[36]]

2. The Common Law and Its Impact on the Internet ROBERT AALBERTS, et al. He discovered a number of probable childpornography sites including one with the title ‘‘Teenflirts.org: The OriginalNon-Nude Teen Index.’’ [[37]]

3. TESTIMONY REGARDING HOW INTERNET PROTOCOL-ENABLED SERVICESARE CHANGING THE FACE OF COMMUNICATIONSBEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCESUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS & THE INTERNET By Charles M. Davidson, Commissioner, Florida Public Service Commission Playboy Enterprises announced today that the company is set to offer nude and non-nudephoto galleries that have been specifically formatted for viewing on Sony's PSPhandheld. [[38]]

4. Forensic assessment of deviant sexual interests: The current position Vanja Flak, Anthony Beech & Dawn Fisher Abel Screening IncorporatedTM commer- cially produces the ‘Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest’ (AASI) (Abel et al., 1998) using entirely non-nude images of children and adults. It assesses sexual interest by combining covert measures of viewing time (often termed visual reaction time [VRT]), with a self-report sexual history and interest questionnaire. [[39]] Wakablogger2 (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the alleged article creator, I'd like to note that in fact I did not create this article, but rather that the current article's location is due to a cut and paste move from 2008 here. I had moved the article correctly in 2006 from the clearly loaded (not to mention nonsensical) term non-nude pornography to non-nude photography, as it was a less POV term that at the time had far more search results and was the term, according to the article at the time, preferred by the "nn community". I have no idea why the cut and past move was done in 2008, or what agenda the cut-and-paste mover had to place an article on my redirect.

As for the fate of the article, I don't much care, but if the article is kept, it should be moved back to non-nude photography (or another NPOV title), with old edits to the article proper being merged with the new edits. Of course, if there is anything salvageable in this article (current or old version), it should be merged with erotic photography rather than outright deleted, although that article currently focuses on nude erotica rather than non-nude "erotic" pictures.-Aknorals (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A topic needs to receive significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria of WP:N. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sources you just quoted don't even mention this exact term, so I see nothing here that justifies a fork from Erotic photography or Pornographic photography. Besides, in its current state, the article also has a problem with WP:DICDEF and WP:NEO. — Rankiri (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point that the article needs work to comply with DICDEF is irrelevant as articles can be cleaned up. It seems clear to me that this is a very real phenomenon, though it may not have yet received a fixed name; in that sense, the NEO issue is a concern. Nevertheless, again this is a real phenomenon and should be explained either in this or a different article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually no evidence this is a notable phenomenon. None of the four references you produced above could be used to cite content in this article or expand it.Prezbo (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those four references provide a powerful indication that this is a real phenomenon and are backed up by numerous raw Google hits when such terms as "non-nude porn" and "non-nude pics" are searched for. That does not mean the references are adequate for expanding the article, only that this is a very real phenomenon. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits don't count for anything because it's impossible to know if they're reliable or even related to the topic. See WP:GHITS. Your references don't provided any indication that this is a notable phenomenon, which is what it needs to be for there to be an article.Prezbo (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google hits do count for something. From the link you provided: "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The citations I provided indicate that it is a topic worth listing on Wikipedia; the Google hits provide evidence that it is a very common topic. Wakablogger2 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of pornographic sub-genres. Epbr123 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of pornographic sub-genres as per Epbr. Stillwaterising (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? Nothing in the article is cited.Prezbo (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep millions of hits, dozens of print publications, hundreds of journalistic reviews and book coverage all show this to be a well established genre. Lostinlodos (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar return zero results for "Non-nude pornography". Please see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and consider providing us with an actual link to at least one of the hundreds of WP:RS sources you just mentioned. — Rankiri (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't aware of this when I nominated this article, but Wikipedia also has Child erotica which the old version of this article was basically a POV fork of. So at best this should be a redirect to that article.Prezbo (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno about that...this is the broader sense of child erotica, which is a specific type of non-nude porn. CTJF83 chat 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah you're probably right, sorry.Prezbo (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NN Photography, NN Pornography, whatever name you search for it - it exists and is a huge market in the Adult Entertainment world - as well as a legal quagmire. Max Rebo Band (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of erotic photography. No content here that meets the requirements of WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 16:58, 4 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear power in Sudan[edit]

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

None of the information in this article can be verified. A single reference can be found to indicate that a minimal nuclear technology agreement was signed between Sudan and the IAEA, allowing Sudan access to isotopes needed for agricultural, water use, and medical research, but the rest of the article appears to have been made up by the author. The cited references do not mention anything about the facts they intend to verify. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just an essay. RanJayJay (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hartman[edit]

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

clear-cut WP:BLP1E. If there was a speedy tag for this, it'd be gone. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a non-NPOV bio of a person who is notable for one event. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: this guy was in several news reports. I think that this article is as significant as many of the small towns, organisms, works of fiction, and other esoteric topics that have Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downtown dan seattle (talk • contribs) 24 February 2010
Have you read WP:BLP1E? Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non otable one event. Nuttah (talk) 18:41, 1 March 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 Football's Next Star . Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greenhalgh[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Obvious failure of WP:ATHLETE per lack of professional appearances. Also, the article states he is currently playing with Inter Primavera (which is the under-19 team, in case you don't know), however he is not listed in the team squad and, quite unusually for a player accordingly signed to a team, his name is not cited anywhere in the club website (a Google search returns no hits). About his reality show appearance, I personally disagree about the fact this makes him notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. For sure, he is not notable for his football career. Angelo (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. As stated above, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. The reality show certainly merits inclusion in the article, but doesn't make the subject notable in any was. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it shouldn't be deleted, as he's still got a professional contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.250.191 (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football's Next Star until such time as he actually achieves something in the game -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with ChrisTheDude. No doubt he will make a professional appearance so theres no need to delete it for the moment, just redirect until such a time comes. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- .........or he could turn out to be the next Sonny Pike -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete: This one might be close because of the coverage the reality show got. But none of the articles I see about the reality show particullary focus on him enough for him to qualify under WP:BIO. Like otherwise mentioned he obviously does not qualify under WP:ATHLETE.MATThematical (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - currently fails ATHLETE and a bit WP:NTEMP / WP:BIO1E but a redirect will at least cover any interest from the oneevent scenario.--ClubOranje^T 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football's Next Star unless he meets ATHLETE at a future date. -- Big Dom 10:27, 28 February 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. The consensus below is that concerns with the article can be addressed by the normal editing process and that is is an appropriate encyclopedic topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest production car[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fastest production car (2nd nomination)

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

This is just poorly sourced random list of fast cars, this is not list of any organization-approved topspeeds (its missing clear rules what cars included and what are the requirements to be in this list, there is no rule what is mass produced car, what years are included etc. etc, so not very encylopedic list), thats why its missing many cars as this is just random list of cars from random years and we have already List of automotive superlatives Typ932 ^T·C 13:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined a prod on this, saying "appropriate list , sourced, not equivalent to any part of article cited as covering the subject". To expand: We have many lists of records over time, compiled from whatever sufficiently RSs are available. Its an appropriate function of an encyclopedia. There are sources for most items, and it should be possible to get the rest. That many of them come from web sources and some from manufacturer's sources does not totally invalidate them. The List of automative superlatives does not give an historical record, just the single record for what the fastest such car is as of now--that a one item overlap, not a duplication. Additionally, there seems from the history of the page to be a general acceptance of what a "production car is", and individual disagreements can be discussed on the talk page. (I note the page is not titled "list of fastest mass-produced cars" -- many of the early ones were made in limited quantities & certainly not by anything resembling "mass-production") The years included in the article are the ones were a faster record was set, which is what I would have expected; I suppose there is a place also for a list of what cars being currently produced in each successive year was the fastest, but that's not the present article. How this can be called "random" escapes me entirely. If the nom. thinks there were other cars to include for intermediate records, he should find the sources and do so. It's no more random than a list of best speeds for running the mile.

The earlier AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast cars in Dec 2006, where I said "I'm tired of saying this yet once more, but list-like articles that people use and can maintain should be kept." -- which was an almost unanimous keep, with the suggestion to rename to the present title. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you cant make this kind of list encyclopedia article, because its random list without any rules and orgnization to approve these speeds compare it to Land speed record list, whihc is under FIA. --Typ932 ^T·C 13:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is interesting information for lots of people. All the list really needs is a better definition of what a production car is. I would guess that it means a car produced for sale to the public. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be maybe intresting if it would have all the missing cars and every year and proper sources and if the records were made with same standards --Typ932 ^T·C 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing issue seems to have been addressed, and the topic is notable enough. I think a different title should be considered -- this one is about the increasing maximum velocities of a production car, and not the fastest production of a car. Mandsford (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the type of article with the potential to make me cringe, but most of the records have sources, so I believe the article can survive. --Pc13 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to both I know you !voted before me but I would encourage both of you to change your position. Having read both your !votes I've actually gone to the effort of going through the sources in the article and came up with my deletion reason below. The assumption that the article is well-sourced because there's a superscript next to each entry is FALSE. Reading through the sources themselves reveals that they contain absolutely nothing of substance or pertinence to the article at hand. Zunaid 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of those WP:SYNTH cases that crop up now and then when dealing with lists. The main red flag is that there isn't an overall reliable source that unequivocally states that this is THE true and correct progression of the production car land speed record. Except for the last few entries referencing Guinness World Records, each entry on the list has a reference pointing to itself only, there is no overall source summarising the lists contents. This by itself isn't ALWAYS a problem; with some lists there is a clear and unambiguous means of determining which entries qualify even without an overall source. This is not the case with this list. How do you know for sure that there are no entries missing? You can't, because there IS no way to know without doing original research. The quality of some of the sources are marginal at best. The McLaren F1 source (surely one of the easiest cars on the list to verify?) references a user website rather than a reputable car publication, which is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. Neither the early Bentleys, nor the Pegaso, nor the Ferrari 410 Spider contain the claim on their respective pages that they are the fastest in the world. At this point I stopped bothering to look through the rest of them because a clear pattern emerges. (Also, at least two of the sources - hypertextbook and supercars.net - won't load for me.) Taken in totality and on closer examination, this looks more and more like someone has cobbled together top speeds of different cars from many different sources and stitched together their best guesstimate of the progression of the production car land speed record. It is far beyond just synthesis and is original research. The fact is: almost NONE of the sources support the claim that that particular car was the fastest in the world at the time. Zunaid 20:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zunaid is exactly right. This is exactly the kind of original research article whose name lends itself well to that end. Ideally this would be a redirect itself (no one would name a car this) but the fact it's a competition lends even more credence to the fact it shouldn't be a stand-alone itself. Shadowjams (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - If you want a list of fast cars then create List of cars by top speed, but this article's naming convention, and approach, is all wrong. If you want the singular fastest car then discuss it in that article. Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is good point --Typ932 ^T·C 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed that there is also funny Preceded by Succeeded by box in the end of some fast cars, see eg. Mercedes-Benz SSK --Typ932 ^T·C 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source links above indicate that the topic is quite notable, as one would expect, and so there are plenty of sources which may be used to improve the article in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read my deletion rationale? I've looked through the so-called "sources" in the article...THERE ARE NONE (except for the last few). None of the sources ACTUALLY say what the article is claiming they say. They are being used to justify certain claims in the article only by the application of original research. The claims all rest on the following line of reasoning: "I - having personally dug through car articles in various sources - haven't found any faster car pre-1940 hence this must have been be the fastest car at the time..." etc. etc. Zunaid 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is largely irrelevant. To delete the article, we must satisfy ourselves that the article is a hopeless case - that it cannot be improved per our editing policy. To evaluate this, the sources in the article are a weak guide as these are often poor. Instead, it is better to look at the sources listed for this topic above - see the link marked Find sources. In this case, these seem ample to support the topic. For example, see Autoweek, which states, "The Koenigsegg CCR -Competition Coupe Racing - officially set the record as the world's fastest production car with a top speed of 241.0 mph (387,9 km/h) measured over one kilometer, The hallowed McLaren F1 XP5 prototype had held the record since March 31, 1998...". Colonel Warden (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, as I've mentioned above the last 3 or 4 entries are the only ones reliably sourced. So you'd end up with a list of 3, maybe 4 cars. That ignores the 100 yeas of motoring that went before (as it should if there are no sources). Basically what I'm saying is that this list article can never be written because the sources, from which it could possibly BE written, do not exist. You're arguing for keeping a cut down and hopelessly incomplete version of the article based on what sources can be found, while I'm arguing for deletion of the same. Let's agree to disagree. Zunaid 13:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is often the case that the early history of some topic is confused or disputed because, by its nature, a topic only becomes well-established after it has existed for some time. And there is naturally some competition to be first or greatest. Such difficulties are inevitable and so no bar to our writing upon a topic as notable as this. Please see WP:V - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable, and worthy of improvement if needed. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Colonel Warden : "The current state of the article is largely irrelevant. To delete the article, we must satisfy ourselves that the article is a hopeless case" Lots of things here can & should be improved, but that is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to make it better. OckRaz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horomayri Monastery[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Article is sourced and though stubby, has tremendous potential for expansion. Long standing religious institutions are inherently notable.--TM 22:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some English sources. I think the Russian is something like Монастырь Оромайри, but that must be wrong because it gets no hits in Google Books. Armenian Հոռոմայրի վանք gets a fair number of hits on a general search - wish I knew what they meant. Nothing in Books, but that is just Google systemic bias. Anyway, for the same reasons given in the AfD for the similarly nominated Makravank Monastery, this seems frivolous - a waste of everyone's time. How can a place like this not be notable? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Horomayri is the transliteration of Armenian: Հոռոմայրի and Armenian: վանք is translated as monastery. -- Ashot (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Հոռոմայրի վանք is the correct search term - and does show various Google hits. Books would be better, but Google does not seem interested in scanning and indexing books in Armenian. Perhaps sadly, Russian seems a more likely language to find online sources discussing the monastery. There are more than enough already, even in English, to establish notability. But the place clearly has a long and interesting history, and there is every reason to suppose that there are many good sources, just not a lot online. If you have access to sources that give more information, please expand the article, with citations. Sources do not have to be in English. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have visited the monastery in person and I have no doubt that it is notable. However because it is not included in main touristic routs (one needs to hike to get there), there is little online coverage of the monastery. -- Ashot (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online, they just have to be reliable and independent. Somewhere there is a section of a history book, or a book about the church, or about the Mkhargrdzeli, or even a guidebook by a local authority that tells more about the structures and their history. There is obviously enough here already to establish notability - that is not in doubt. But the article would be a lot better if it had more information. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I see the monastery is old (possible historic importance) and was built by some Zakarid-Mkhargrzeli noble family (from the aticle), which has an article. -RobertMel (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More sources are always better, but this seems a reasonable wikipedia entry. Would like to see someone extract some native language sources. I also tend to err on the side of inclusion for articles that are not spam or self-promoting and this appears to be neither. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Aymatth2. Sardur (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets guidelines. ‡ Himalayan ‡^ΨMonastery 15:49, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monofur[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this font is at all notable, other than the notion that it was designed for a convention. I'm sure thousands of fonts have been designed for conventions, what makes this one worthy of inclusion? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see absolutely no reason why this is notable. It's a font made for a convention - one of hundreds, if not thousands. How is this one special enough to deserve an article? --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Motorists Association[edit]

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

Flagged since April 2008 as being drawn almost exclusively from the organisation's own website, this has not been fixed. Claims of significance currently are not supported by any reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - the article sucks, but the subject has lots of Google hits. Maybe we can just remove all the bits that aren't sourced reliably? Rklawton (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References from outside sources have been added since the flagging, and more are available. The subject is notable. --joeOnSunset (talk) 20:32, 25 February 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. (NAC) Swarm^(Talk) 01:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Ray[edit]

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

Advert Stanfixart (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several G news and book hits. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:42, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paula O'Rourke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Paula O'Rourke

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

Non-notable, she played in one marginally notable band, all other bands she has been a part of are not notable. No independent notability on her own. Ridernyc (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant notability. -RobertMel (talk) 16:54, 24 February 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 waggers (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Mitchell (meteorologist)[edit]

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

May not reach notability guideline, no refs iBen 20:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One quibble about the article is that it does not meet notability guidelines due to lack of references. However, this was a bit quick considering the article had been created only a half-hour before it was immediately tagged for possible deletion. However, this is no longer the case as references to some information included in the article have been tagged to the article and are in the reference list, therefore it is no longer a basis for possible deletion based on that. I might find additional websites to reference article mentions, but only a few more may be needed. Also in regard to the whole orphan article thing, I have linked the article to the WOI-TV article under "former personalities", however I should note that it would be hard to link the article to any others considering Mitchell has only worked at one other television station prior to his current stint at KOCO-TV, and his only employment in the weather industry prior to working in television was a short stint at AccuWeather. Also according to koco.com's biography on Mitchell, it states that Mitchell graduated from the University of Nebraska, come to find out that U of N has four campuses; I put him as being an alumni of U of N-Omaha, but anyone who knows which U of N campus Mitchell actually graduated from can correct the "category" tag for it. Tvtonightokc (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The station's website, and YouTube assert existence, but do not meet the notability guideline. The article from the NOAA is good, but WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which doesn't seem to exist here. That said, a quick check of GNews came up with this: I did find one article here: http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x681830784/City-residents-prepare-for-powerful-storm , and so there may be more out there, so I will make my delete vote a weak one. Addionne (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe that local meteorologists, or even local news anchors, are notable absent some significant coverage ~~outside their local broadcasting area~~, preferably outside of their local broadcast area. If I've missed that then please post it here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply comment - There are articles on Wikipedia about local television meteorologists who are generally only well known within their broadcast area, such as WJW-TV meteorologist Dick Goddard, who is generally well known only to Clevelanders (sorry if that is the wrong word to reference people from Cleveland, Ohio). Local news anchors are also notable in Wikipedia article despite the fact they may not be nationally-known (though there are some exceptions, but really only in the case if they have gone to national success on news outlets such as CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, etc.). So this does make that comment fall apart somewhat. Local meteorologists can be notable for things such as their coverage of weather events, community work, etc. and local anchors can require notability in Wikipedia for news coverage and their in-depth reporting, among other things. Tvtonightokc (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of other pages only suggests that they need reviewed, not that it's an applicable standard. As for local coverage, there is no local coverage language, at least not in BLPs, unlike events, although there may be in certain subcategories, such as politicians. It is, however, a criteria thrown around in lots of AfD debates, and in some essays too, I think. I've softened my above statement accordingly.
The closest on point guideline is the WP:AUTHOR guideline, which also covers journalists. Shadowjams (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the "significant coverage outside their local broadcast area" note, I have since added to the article a mention about Rick Mitchell and KOCO's coverage of the Lone Grove EF4 tornado that occured last February during the February 2009 tornado outbreak (I probably should add that the station was one of two that captured the Edmond EF2 tornado via helicopter the same day, I may just get to that) and though it was broadcast in the Oklahoma City metro area, the coverage was intended to be targeted to viewers in the storm's path in south-central Oklahoma who view KOCO via local cable providers as the station's signal is only available on cable in the Lone Grove area as well as it being the (well, one of the) default ABC affiliate(s) in the Ada-Sherman market, Lone Grove being in that market. I hope this satisfies that "significant coverage" note, at least a little bit. Tvtonightokc (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Shadowjams. -RobertMel (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KOCO-TV. I think that most local television news hosts should be mentioned as part of the article about where they are employed. I guess he gets points for being listed as "TV Meteorologist #3" in the movie Twister, but that goes back to his being a celebrity in Oklahoma. Mandsford (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KOCO-TV. Per above note from Mandsord.--Steam Iron 09:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple awards, direct commendation by the Governor of a state, Minor role in a major movie, all cited to Reliable sources -- I think it adds up for notability. The coverage isn't huge, but it is IMO well above the "trivial" level. Being a statewide celebratory, as Mandsford suggests that the is, is itself a form of notability, IMO. DES ^(talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way i note that several sources were added after the AfD began. i want to remind nominators about the importance of WP:BEFORE. DES ^(talk) 05:55, 4 March 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. Whether to first merge some of the content, and what the target should be, dis not have a clear a consensus, but those are editorial decisions that need not be settled at an AdfD in any case. DES ^(talk) 06:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (N.B. I chose to merge some content into Fresno (band), and to redirect to the dab page, in my role as an editor. DES ^(talk) 06:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Stonehenge (song)[edit]

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

can't find anything notable about this single, it wasn't even released to radio Alan - talk 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Suggest merging with Fresno. Poltair (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to band's article per WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect and lock to prevent edit warring. Not individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect... Note: there is a far more notable song by the same title... (see: This Is Spinal Tap (album)). A clearer disambiguation would be needed even for this disambiguated title. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge NN song for its own article. CTJF83 GoUSA 21:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - everyone is correct about the need to do this, except the target for the redirect should be the parent album Quarto dos Livros. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely someone would type Stonehenge (song). LibStar (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Stonehenge (disambiguation), where users may decide between Fresno's song and the song off the This Is Spinal Tap album. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:18, 3 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supragnosticism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Zero hits in google or google books when article created - now there are some hits in google, but they're all wikipedia mirrors. Prod removed with statement "The term has appeard in several theological public disscusions and two times in a Croatian theological magazines." Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO, WP:OR, WP:G3. — Rankiri (talk) 18:10, 24 February 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 transwiki to Wikitionary then delete. A merge to Corruption in South Africa is inappropriate, as that article is unsourced and contentious. As the term meets Wiktionary's criteria it is appropriate to transwiki it to Wikitionary.. SilkTork *^YES! 11:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenderpreneur[edit]

delete Original research. Wizzy…☎ 10:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. User created a similar article about "tenderpreneurship" which I deleted after seeing this AfD. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Changing vote to neutral for now. The term seems to get a fairly good number of Google hits and it's a pretty good start for a new user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiktionary might be a better home for this if it doesn't grow some legs. Still, as a term for a specific kind of corruption endemic to South Africa this has potential. I'm inclined to wait and see where it goes. Gobonobo ^T ^C 06:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Remove it from here and maybe stick in the Wiktionary. RanJayJay (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge anything relevant (including a mention of the word) into Corruption in South Africa, which could certainly do with some expansion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*I just noticed that my previous comment is ambiguous. I meant, of course, that our article on corruption in South Africa needs expansion, not the practice of corruption! Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourced indicate notability of this specific type of corruption. --Pink Bull 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism/dicdef, or Merge to Corruption in South Africa. Blast Ulna (talk) 16:26, 4 March 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. The consensus in this discussion appears to hold that the vast majority of the references provided are self-published or regurgitated press releases, and that the notability of the subject has been insufficiently demonstrated. The suspicion that this article is indeed the result of paid editing is also distinctly plausible, despite assurances to the contrary. ~ mazca ^talk 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl D. Green[edit]

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

Biographical/ad page for primarily self-published author. No significant coverage in independent third party sources. Most of the citations are unverifiable, trivial mentions or primary sources. While there is one verifiable citation from a reputable newspaper, it's a column written by the subject, not about the subject. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That was the reason presented when I created the first version. In the meantime I learned some more about what would be expected to appear in such an article. I added independent third party sources, certainly not trivial mentions. I guess they are enough now to make clear the notability. I'm not sure about verifiability, would it mean that only on-line sources are accepted? The newspaper articles can be verified in libraries (where I found available, I included the respective link). Yedogawa (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A personal page. This stuff belongs on LinkedIn, not wikipedia. RanJayJay (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Google and and Yahoo generate sufficient number of hits for an article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why your vote is an exception to WP:GOOGLEHITS from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR with only 3 of his books being listed in WorldCat, and only being held by 15, 8, and 7 libraries. GScholar show that his works have been cited exactly two times. GNews shows only an article that he wrote, and no independent cites by reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Fails WP:PROF under all 9 of the criteria. Of the third party sources, those that I could look at were either in relation to book signings, to articles written by the subject of the article, and general references to notability by being a writer (see fails Author, above). Don't know if this is a WP:SPA - hard to tell based on the limited time as an editor, but the overwhelming majority of the editing is on Green. Assuming good faith, I would recommend that the article be userfied, and that the article then reworked (if it is possible to show notability under Author or Prof standards). (GregJackP (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage", "Reliable Sources", "Independent of the subject" and "Presumed". There is significant, third party coverage in reliable sources like Knoxville News Sentinel, Shreveport Times, Ebony, Tri-City Herald, and others that can be seen in the article. Most of the media coverage seems to come from the years 1998-2000 and GNews does not help in this sense. The only such article I found available on-line was not even on the official website, but on findarticles.com. Yedogawa (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete but give yedogawa one more week to improve per GregJackP. The books mentioned are self-published from vanity presses. This has WP:PEOPLE problems which states:
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
Green lacks substantial coverage and most of the other sources are trivial as outlined by TheRealFennShysa above. I would like to hear from Yedogawa his relation to the article's subject. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, from the below discussion, Yedogawa is working in good faith, making many changes to the article while learning Wikipedia policies (we've all ridden that curve) and plans on making radical changes. My opinion is that he should be given one additional week. If at the end of that week the article still doesn't establish notability, then we should userfy it to give him more time. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The contributor has done an impressive job of compiling links, but there is still no evidence of the kind of substantial independent coverage called for in the general notability guideline. The references cited in the article are largely self-published, and the Google and Yahoo search results that Pharaoh of the Wizards cites consist almost entirely self-published items (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and bios submitted to another website) or articles posted on free-content sites like associatedcontent. Because Mr. Green lives in my local area, I have seen or read some of the local newspaper coverage mentioned, and I recognized his name when the article appeared. I don't recall ever seeing local media coverage that would be considered substantial. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I identified 5 sources that were (or appeared to be) self-published. I went ahead and deleted them and I added some other sources published in prestigious journals. Now there are no self-published sources in the references (to my knowledge of what means self-publishing). And, even as they were yesterday, I saw they did not make the references "largely self-published". Regarding the quote from WP:PEOPLE, all the third party articles from 1998-2000 that I selected to add as references are entirely about Daryl D. Green (except the one from Ebony, where the article covers him together with other people), describing at length, in substantial articles, his family life, the way he considers the relation between family and workplace, his book, the notion of "meshing", the way he originated it etc. Orlady should point out which referenced coverage read by her is not substantial, since I already made a selection, discarding inevitable short sources which could not be considered substantial. Regarding the time of sources, it seems that his peak of notability was in those years, after he published the first book (at least from what I could find, anyway here should apply WP:NTEMP). I am not related to the subject of the article. I saw this question quite often in the other requests for deletion, when researching about this situation. Personally, I don't find it relevant in the overall process of deletion requests, since we are working with visible facts and no single editor has control over the article. Yedogawa (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is relevant as far as the guideline WP:COI is concerned which Wikipedia strongly discourages. It states:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.

∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not obligated to try to prove Mr. Green's non-notability by providing reference citations for the random newspaper articles that I vaguely recall having read in the past 10 to 15 years. The burden of proof is on Yedogawa (and/or other contributors interested in demonstrating that Mr. Green is notable) to find sources that demonstrate notability. If notability cannot be demonstrated, the page does not belong in article space until such time as notability is demonstrated. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are not obligated to prove, but in the same time you shouldn't declare something based on "vaguely recall". This while now there are cited the significant third party sources. As an overall comment, I see that the discussion remains based on the state of the article at the moment of its creation, when it did not make clear what would this person be notable for, with LinkedIn type references and that list of books.Yedogawa (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yedogawa, my point was that I thought back over my recollections of reading articles about Mr. Green, but I couldn't recall anything that would make me think he would be considered notable by Wikipedia standards. If I had remembered some coverage that had led me to think there was a basis for notability, I would have offered suggestions on what to look for. I did not also say that I believe I met Mr. Green a couple of times, as I know that isn't relevant to his notability. My apologies for trying to be helpful. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 7 days deadline is getting near. I saw that the guideline recommends debate and consensus, not vote counting. However, I saw that in practice the vote counting is the one usually taken into consideration. I want to draw attention to the changes occurred when compared to the first version of the article, at this moment it has no self-published references and it establishes notability with multiple independent and substantial sources. Yedogawa (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment - I have no doubt that Mr. Green is an estimable fellow, but I'm not seeing evidence of notability per Wikipedia criteria. The article states "Mr. Green became known for his lectures and writings...". Since "became known for" is a claim to notability, I looked for the sources cited. However, the two sources cited on that sentence do not tell me that he is "known for" these things. One source is a Knoxville News Sentinel article (not online) with a headline saying that he led a seminar at a meeting (I can point to plenty of nonnotable people who have led seminars at meetings...). The other is a link to a page in this article in Ebony, which I guess was written by Green, but I can't find his name on the article (much less an indication that he is "known for" something). The next sentence cites two reviews of his book, both in local newspapers, with titles ("Couple mesh mission with balancing families" and "Creative Crowd: Writer offers family hope") that suggest that these were essentially human-interest feature stories about a local person (good stuff, but not a clear indication of notability).
BTW, I clicked on the link to his co-authored paper "Diversity as a Competitive Strategy in the Workplace" (Journal of Practical Consulting. Vol I, Iss. 2, pp. 51-55), thinking that it might provide an author profile, but the URL included in that link is http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/GreenD02.pdf -- Green's article on "Divine Empowerment: Interpretation through the Exegesis of Acts 2". (That article does have a profile, but it does not indicate notability: "Regent University, Doctoral candidate in Strategic Leadership; MA in Organizational Management; Ordained Deacon, Bible Lecturer, and Youth Advisor at Payne Avenue Baptist Church (Knoxville, Tennessee)".) --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Ebony was not written by Green, but by Ebony staff. One actually reading the article can see point 6, consisting in one of the advices from Daryl's first book. Regarding the "suggestion" of the titles, you discuss again in the vein of "vaguely recalling" articles about Green. I already mentioned what they are covering. "Stories about a local person" would rather be the two sources about him being a native of Shreveport. And these two are also part of the 1998-2000 sources asserting notability, they were written on the occasion of being given the keys to the City of Shreveport on "Daryl Green Day", covering at length the things that made him notable in those years, i.e. the ideas from that book.

Regarding the co-authored paper, I think it was obvious that it was a editing, copy/paste mistake, the URL was in fact that of a previously cited work. I added the correct URL.

As a side note, for my future knowledge, where in the guidelines it is said that "stories about local people" are not notable? I mean I suppose it depends on what is actually written in the article in ascertaining notability or not. Yedogawa (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of the independent non trivial coverage required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PEOPLE, "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"

Multiple independent non trivial sources:

Jacquelyn Brown (March 18, 1998), Families, same as jobs, need energy, goals, Knoxville News-Sentinel

ORO Employee Writes Book on Family Goal Setting, The Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Information Office, Volume 1, No. 4, January 1998

Richland talk today about balancing work, Tri-City Herald, July 7, 1998

Olga Wierbicki (August 16, 2000), Couple mesh mission with balancing families, Knoxville News-Sentinel

10 Things You Must Know Before You Say 'I do', Ebony, August 2000

Teri Bailey (February 8, 1998), Ex-Shreveporter visits with a message, Shreveport Times

Former local holds book review at library, The Shreveport Sun, February 12, 1998

Dorothy Senn (May 1, 1998), Creative Crowd: Writer offers family hope, Oak Ridger

Yedogawa (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I searched the online archives at the Oak Ridger newspaper for potentially useful 3rd-party coverage. Here are some excerpts from the more promising hits:

May 1, 1998 - Creative Crowd: Writer offers families hope (cited in the article): "I believe we all have a destiny," Daryl Green said this week. He believes his, at least for the present, is coaching single parents and working couples in how to set and implement family goals. In 1997 Daryl and his wife, Estraletta, began working with families in interactive family coaching sessions and with small groups, which led to workshops for larger groups. Daryl is the author of "My Cup Runneth Over: Setting Goals for Single Parents and Working Couples," published in February 1998 by Triangle Press in Oak Ridge. The book, subtitled, "A Practical Guide for Implementing Family Goals and Improving Communication," is available at Books-A-Million here and at Books-A-Million, Davis-Kidd Booksellers and Barnes & Noble in Knoxville. ...Daryl recalls that he and Estraletta were just out of college, married two or three years, when he went to a Family Life Conference that changed his focus. ... A native of Baton Rouge, La.,, Daryl earned a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering and a master's degree in organizational management. He is currently with the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations office working as an environment project manager charged with locating new technology to clean up DOE environmental sites. "My emphasis is in management," he said. "My expertise is in the management techniques used in the corporate world. I have managed a nonprofit organization and government programs, but the hardest thing to manage is families." It is the same management techniques he and Estraletta, who holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from Southern University A&M, use in their professional careers which they bring to their family coaching sessions, small groups and workshops....

October 9, 1998, Greens give family support seminars: Blacks in Government (BIG), one of the largest advocacy organizations in the United States, sponsored its 20th annual National Training Conference in Washington, D.C.... Oak Ridge employees Daryl and Estraletta Green presented two workshops at the conference. The Greens conduct seminars and provide personal coaching for families around the country.

March 12, 1999, Oak Ridge engineer launching TV show: Daryl Green, an author and Oak Ridge engineer with the Department of Energy, will host a new talk show called "FamilyVision" that will air Monday and Wednesday, March 15 and March 18, on Community Television of Knoxville's cable Channel 12. The new show will feature local guests with inspiring stories to help families.... Green and his wife, Estraletta, conduct family seminars across the country and write a column that has appeared in The Oak Ridger and in newspapers in Knoxville and Shreveport, La. They have been featured on television and radio programs, including "Alive at Five" and "Beyond the Headlines: The African-American Point of View."

July 28, 2000, Greens in August issue of Ebony: Daryl and Estraletta Green, Oak Ridge employees, will provide advice in Ebony Magazine. The article, "10 Things You Must Know Before You Say 'I Do'" will appear in the August issue. The Greens are nationally syndicated columnists and offer insight to national media outlets such as USA Today and BET cable television. Daryl Green says their consulting company, PMLA, helps individuals as well as business deal with the issues of balancing work and family life. He is the author of "My Cup Runneth Over: Setting Goals for Single Parents and Working Couples." The Greens are also considered residential experts on such sites as Exp.com, Allexperts.com, Askme.com and Keen.com. Visit the Web site at www.afamilyvision.com.

February 16, 2001. Briefs: Book signing Monday: Daryl D. Green, an Oak Ridge engineer, will sign copies of his new book, "Awakening the Talents Within" at 5 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 19, at Books-A-Million in Oak Ridge. ... Green says this is a wake-up call for the next generation of leaders. "The solutions contained in the book reflect over 10 years of managing, consulting and teaching in government, nonprofit, business, private and academic institutions," he said. Green and his wife, Estraletta, offer advice nationally in USA Today, Ebony Magazine and BET on cable.

In addition to these, I found several contributed columns by Green (on parenting and other topics); several items about Green's involvement in Toastmasters meetings and Blacks in Government; and several items about his teaching seminars local (at community colleges and on local cable TV) about topics like "how to become a published author". --Orlady (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe Green wrote the Ebony article (at least there is no attribution). He has a brief mention in the article on page 2. I disagree with the statement, "at this moment it has no self-published references". "My Cup Runneth Over" is published by "Performance Management & Logistics Associates" [40] which isn't a bona fide publisher.[41] The article includes "Breaking Organizational Ties" but doesn't note that it is self-published. The article's grandest statement is, "The FamilyVision column, written together with his wife Estraletta Green, has reached over 200 newspapers and more than 15 million readers (syndicated through Newspaper Publishers Association)." The only references to verify that are 5 off-line references from 2000/2001 from publications of which none have Wikipedia articles. When searching for this column, I found several online entries written by his wife -- one in particular which advocates self-publishing and laments that "[t]he major purpose for traditional publishers is to turn a profit."[42] Well, Wikipedia requires mainstream publishers. To make the extraordinary claim 200 newspapers and a 15 million readers, the article's author must provide extraordinarily high quality sources to verify that statement. The entire last paragraph is without citations. The statement "He was noted and quoted by USA Today, Ebony Magazine, Associated Press, NBC’s Alive at Five, Answerline, American Urban Radio, and BET’s Buy the Book" is uncited. I'm sorry, but this doesn't rise to the level of notability that Wikipedia requires. It strikes me as a self-promotion page relying on self-published books and unverifiable claims. This would be more fit on LinkedIn or on his personal web site where he does a fine job of promotion.[43] Finally, I'd like to hear from Yedogawa whether he is employed or under contract with Green. And, yes, it is relevant. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, do you fall under one of these two categories (from WP:COI):

you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or
you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement, "at this moment it has no self-published references". "My Cup Runneth Over" is published by "Performance Management & Logistics Associates" [44] which isn't a bona fide publisher.

The book does not appear in the references, the references section comprises sources published by bona fide publishers. It is discussed in these references, that's another story, it was notable.

The article's grandest statement is, "The FamilyVision column, written together with his wife Estraletta Green, has reached over 200 newspapers and more than 15 million readers (syndicated through Newspaper Publishers Association)."

Then you may delete that (I deleted it myself, it looked like no one else would do that). I added the TV show mentioned in one of the new sources provided by Orlady.

The statement "He was noted and quoted by USA Today, Ebony Magazine, Associated Press, NBC’s Alive at Five, Answerline, American Urban Radio, and BET’s Buy the Book" is uncited.

I added citations for some of them from the new sources provided by Orlady. Probably the others could be cited too, but they require some more research, I deleted them, it is getting really tiring.

The entire last paragraph is without citations.

I deleted that.

Regarding WP:COI, I don't fall under those categories. I read several years ago the book "My Cup Runneth Over", and I had some idea about the coverage it received in 1998-2000, if this is a COI. I created the article, then I got dragged into proving more and more the notability. I was quite alone, no one was interested in studying the media coverage concerning this person, except the last comment by Orlady.

As a final note to your comment, these looked rather like ideas for improving the article, since there is no word about the multiple independent non trivial sources provided per WP:PEOPLE. Yedogawa (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the items that I cited appeared to be press releases from Mr. Green that were dutifully reproduced in the local newspaper. I would be very surprised if the Oak Ridger had verified statements like "offer advice nationally in USA Today, Ebony Magazine and BET on cable." The one item in that collection that was bona fide 3rd party coverage was the May 1, 1998 article, "Creative Crowd: Writer offers families hope", which is the only piece that had an writer's byline on it. It appears to have been written from the blurb on the book jacket plus an interview with Daryl Green. As coverage goes, it's not nearly enough to demonstrate notability -- a very similar article would have been written about a local kid who won the regional spelling bee or a local woman whose quilts were put on display in the public library. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this pattern of singling out coverage that would not be accepted as reference on Wikipedia (which at this moment does not even appear in the article, this would have been a matter of cleaning the sources by an experimented user) and presenting them as the "reference". However, this does not give an answer to the 3rd party coverage currently listed as references. Nobody talks about it, as if it would not exist. Yedogawa (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As some examples 'ORO Employee Writes Book on Family Goal Setting, The Department of Energy - Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Information Office, Volume 1, No. 4, January 1998' is not independent, it is written by his employer. 'Famous Knoxvillians". City of Knoxville' & 'Tennessee Writers". University of Tennessee.' are his name on a list, not substantial coverage. '10 Things You Must Know Before You Say 'I do' is a couple of lines of comment by the subject, not substantial coverage of the subject of the article. Many others are items written by the subject. The newspapers articles appear to be of the format 'x will be appearing/lecturing at y', again not coverage of the subject. The requirement at WP:GNG requires work along the lines of academic or media coverage of the article's subject that is not written by the subject or his associates. If you wish to use items written by the subject to establish notability, it needs to be material that has been used and cited by others in the field widely. Nuttah (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers articles appear to be of the format 'x will be appearing/lecturing at y'

I don't see these ones in the picture: Families, same as jobs, need energy, goals; Couple mesh mission with balancing families; Ex-Shreveporter visits with a message (this is not about 'lecturing', but when he received the keys of the City of Shreveport, on "Daryl D. Green Day"); Creative Crowd: Writer offers family hope

The article in DOE is necessary in order to show the position of this Department regarding the way he applied elsewhere skills used in this institution. Yedogawa (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Respoding to Yedogawa: The references include a couple of mentions in local papers, some quoting Green's unverified press releases, information about seminars, mention of self-published book signings, a DOE press release, a whole series of citations from publications that do not have a Wikipedia article, 2 papers he has written on benchmarking, a "post" from the Knoxnews.com about bad bosses, a religious article for a free online "journal", and an article for a journal put out by Pat Robertson's Regent University. Nothing here rises to a level of notability that would warrant a Wikipedia article. It is not about quantity but quality. The fact that someone gets published in a couple of technical/academic journals does not establish notability. I understand and empathize that you were moved by his self-published ""My Cup Runneth Over" written 15 years ago. There are many venues to recommend his book -- Amazon is a great place for laying out the value of his book. But if we included everyone who has had a mention or two in a local newspaper or who have written a technical article or two, we'd be flooded. Instead of all of these primary sources you are finding, you need to find tertiary sources that establish his notability. For instance, the Ebony article is a good example, though too brief a mention to be useful. That the local a newspaper mentions that Green is having a book signing and quotes his press release establishes neither notability or verifiability of the claims in his press release. Find reliable sources -- mainstream, published, known for fact checking -- that state that (say) his technical articles made significant changes in his area of expertise, then you would help establish his notability. From WP:NRVE:

The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition....

∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I uploaded here 3 articles (one is covered on two images), among those published in media with Wikipedia articles, to give an idea about why I see notability in this case. Yedogawa (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, those are three good references. You have done an excellent job editing the article, stripping it of its unproven claims (e.g., 200 newspapers). For it to remain an article, you would need to work on shrinking it even further, writing it in more of a neutral point of view and less of a promotional piece that sounds too much like a resume and focusing primarily on his reputation for family goal setting and much less on him being a "20th Century Renaissance Man". His professional work can be mentioned as background in the bio section but without all the "He managed over 400 projects estimated at $100 million before he was 30" verbiage. To state he has been "featured on USA Today, etc." would have to be verified not from Green himself but, preferably, from (say) USA Today itself or at least an independent reliable source. I would focus on his original book, leave off all of his self-published books and try to find other third party sources that would confirm his success as a prominent family advisor. It would be great to find out if any substantial newspaper carried his column. I believe you are fighting an uphill battle, but obviously you are a quick learner and may be able to overcome it. As the article stands now, I don't see it happening. But it will depend upon you to provide more substance. Although I would still vote for deletion, I wouldn't see any harm to the project if you wanted another week or so to further develop the article, particularly taking out the promotional stuff. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piece of advice, you may want to userfy the article or put it into incubation which, barring extensive changes to the current article, is probably your best bet to give yourself time to make a Wikipedia-worthy article. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out these concrete issues. The initial content of the article was mostly a compilation from various on-line sources and indeed phrases like "20th Century Renaissance Man" wouldn't have a place here. I think another week would be useful, since the discussion is already started here. Yedogawa (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only one voice here -- I've changed my vote to "Delete but give you one more week". I hope they provide you the time. If Green was truely featured in (for one example) USA Today, then that would go a long way to establishing notability. "Featured" as a well defined sense thaat the newspaper had a feature article on Green. Sometimes, some companies say "featured" meaning they ran an ad in a publication. That, naturally neough, wouldn't qualify. The more third party confirmation of Green's expertise in family dynamics, the better. The reason that verbiage such as "He managed over 400 projects estimated at $100 million before he was 30" is not helpful is because that doesn't establish his notability by which I don't mean that isn't an impressive accomplishment and I know the level of focus and skill required to be a DOE project manager but that doesn't rise to the level of notability required for Wikipedia. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as paid editing spam created through this request on elance dot com. Our spam guideline and conflict of interest guideline come into play here, as well as our policy that Wikipedia is not intended as a vehicle for promotion. Them From Space 18:46, 4 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larswm[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The most in-depth coverage I could find [45] is in Brave GNU World (this has been translated and republished in various magazines Linux Magazine editions [46] [47]). Another section (4 paragraphs) is in this round-up archive of the defunct LinuxWorld.com, and there's another paragraph about it here (original) by the same author. It was apparently included in a round-up in Linux Format issue 65, but unluckily pdf issues before 66 can't even be purchased anymore, they've completely disappeared from their site. I could find passing mentions in other WP:RS, [48] [49]. All mentions in google books are in a list of similar WMs, usually in books about Knoppix. Pcap ping 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Pcap has shown there was a lot artciles about larswm. Isn't that enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.27.153 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Pcap --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kahakai[edit]

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

Probably non-notable software. Can't any independent third-party reliable sources. A notability cleanup tag has been languishing on the article for over a year. Psychonaut (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched the usual Linux WP:RS, but besides passing mentions [50] [51] [52] [53], I could not find anything else. Pcap ping 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article covers a stalled/abandoned software project and lacks citations to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 21:35, 24 February 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 as R2 by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Aversion in Forex[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork on Foreign Exchange Market, possibly created as venue for link failing to meet WP:Reliable sources (which has been removed). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic opinion piece and original research. Risk aversion in foreign exchange markets (English for "forex") is not really different from any other strategy to avoid financial risk generally; this would also appear to be a content fork. (We also have currency risk.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:OR and content forking. — Jeff G. ツ 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved into the user's userspace after a discussion on IRC and is now at User:Wikireporter365/Risk Aversion in Forex. Banaticus (talk) 05:01, 25 February 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. The consensus is for delete, and that is supported by our guidelines on companies - WP:COMPANY. As mentioned, the coverage of this company has not been significant. The point brought up about media coverage on the company's own website is dealt with in WP:NOT#NEWS. Essentially, we are looking for reliable evidence of notability rater than news coverage. SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B2C Jewels[edit]

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

I am skeptical as to the notability of this online jewelry retail store. The only references, outside of business directories, are short mentions or vignettes in articles which are not about the B2C Jewels, but rather about online retailing in general. Psychonaut (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self-promotional, reads like a conversation. Not notable enough. RanJayJay (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — RanJayJay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The company is notable, just that the article *could be* not to the mark. Someone should rather concentrate adding healthy content to the article. Google WebSearch [54] 63,600 Hits, Please refer all the Press Releases, Television, and Magazine coverage across US [55]. The article looks to be a good candidate for wiki. The article contains references about the company, which a neutral article should normally have. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure. User:Ganesh J. Acharya was an employee of "this company's sister concern". [56] —Psychonaut (talk) 10:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure. I am an ex-employee of this company's sister concern and have nothing to do with this company any more and have no stakes with this company as on date. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 324 unique ghits, none of which are significant coverage in an independent reliable source. Fails notability guidelines. Nuttah (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the company's webpage cited above by Ganesh J. Acharya, there are multiple independent TV news stories about this company. While I am normally hesitant to endorse this kind of article, it seems clearly notable per the usual criteria, namely, coverage by outside independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Read the article; it contains no encyclopedia-worthy information. Blast Ulna (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be expanded further. It sounds a better solution than deleting the article, since the company is notable. I have less experience in editing articles of this type, so, I request other wiki contributors to participate. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 02:23, 5 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose N Sanchez[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete per Wikipedia:Notability (sports); no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a quick google search only yields profile pages and college paper articles. He does not play in the NBA, so he is not even notable by the extremely lax athlete standards.MATThematical (talk) 15:17, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeBits[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Pcap ping 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per opening comment. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 13:28, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Loli-Queru[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR in my view. That's a very subjective guideline as evidenced by the recent AfDs: biographies kept per some Wikipedia editors' personal assessment of point 3 in that guideline, despite lack of significant independent coverage, so I'm sure some will disagree here as well. Pcap ping 12:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think. There is indeed no significant coverage of the subject. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 24 February 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. (NAC) Swarm^(Talk) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of protest clubs[edit]

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

This follows the deletion of both List of revival clubs (discussion)and List of pheonix clubs (discussion). This article was created, along side 'revival clubs', out of the latter. This article isn't as bad as those - in that 'protest club' is both a phrase and concept which isn't just a neologism invented by the article creator, and in principle the clubs might share some similarities which could deserve a list. As such, this listing is in part a test: though I think the article should probably be deleted, I'm aware that there may be scope for improvement and am willing to be persuaded otherwise. As it stands, though, the article is unreferenced, does not assert the notability of the topic or the items included in the list, does not state the criteria for inclusion (and includes some entities, such as AFC Liverpool, which have described themselves as not protest clubs (see these google results) and would be of essentially no benefit to anyone wanting to create a decent version of this article; it should therefore be deleted. Pretty Green (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'd prefer that someone write an article called "protest club" and then let this list be part of that. Though I am sure that there will be people who try to find some loophole in the nominator's suggestions about how someone might write an acceptable article -- the "someone, but not I, will work on this" or "there is no deadline" (kind of the opposite of "the end of the world is nigh") or "AFD is not for cleanup" (actually, it's pretty well the only way that we get rid of a mess) arguments -- but there's no point in keeping an article if nobody cares to say where they got the information from. I'm willing to change my mind if someone makes an effort to improve this. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, this nomination is in part because of the deletion of the two related articles; I also support the idea of writing a 'protest clubs' article. My judge in these cases is always whether the existence of an article can do anything to assist anyone wanting to write a proper, sourced article: in this cases, I don't think this article contains anything that would do so. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it could be cleaned up, but theres no need to delete it. I'll do my best to source it when I get the time, which will possibly be in an hour or 2. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've sourced the tparts of the list, so there should be no problem with it avoiding deletion and remaining as part of the keep list. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good fixup by Thecofe with the addition of sources. Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the very premise of the list - what is a protest club and why are these listed on there - remains unsourced! --Pretty Green (talk) 10:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no the reason why these particular clubs are listed there has been added with the respective source The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and expand - I agree with Mandsford's original assessment. Protest clubs are a very real phenomenon and a number of very well known clubs (Inter, Liverpool, Real) are protest clubs. However, I believe that the information could be described much better in prose than in list form. I would much rather see an article on what a protest club is with some of the clubs on this list included as case studies, and have the list itself be transferred to a subsection of the article or turned into a category. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it seems like the 7 days of this being created has passed and the community has voted keep so can someone please wrap it up and close the debate. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:55, 3 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

America Bazar[edit]

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

Only source in the article is a (currently dead) link to a blog. Web and news search don't produce anything that can demonstrate notability. PROD contested by author. Favonian (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything on this article that is not from wikipedia. It could be a genuine but non-notable place, it could be an alternate local name for a place, or it could be a hoax. Either way, barring a few independent sources that positively state that the place exists, I suggest deleting the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to PROD this myself, but it was PRODded and contested before I got the chance to do so. Nothing at all in WP:RS to suggest that this place exists, and even if it does, it's a market in a place with a population of 1250 people. —SpacemanSpiff 19:43, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Craig Pennell[edit]

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

Claim to fame is apparently that this person was "first living non-royal person depicted on a New Zealand stamp". (1968) There is no evidence it actually does depict Pennell, and even if it did the claim is verifiably false per this 1956 stamp where "The photograph was taken by Mr J F Louden of Tauranga of his grandchildren at play" and "The stamp designs were developed based on this photographic image". There is no in-depth coverage of Pennell to satisfy WP:GNG requirements and nothing of note within his article to pass inclusion criteria ClubOranje^T 11:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search picked up nothing of note. -- Avenue (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Avenue (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if Pennell is the person on the stamp, the persons in the montage of photographs on this 1939 stamp would have a better claim to being the first. Daveosaurus (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The keep is a technicality as there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Editors may wish to boldly merge the page, or discuss it first. Fences&Windows 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian perspectives on child pornography[edit]

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

This does not appear notable. I cannot find reputable sources specifically summarizing libertarian views on child pornography, and though there are anarchist or other takes on the issue as cited in the text, that does not justify a separate page. The page's material can be moved elsewhere. Rehoboam (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Laws regarding child pornography and/or Criticism of laws regarding child pornography. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a merge to Criticism of laws regarding child pornography. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone, I also agree that the article's content should be merged into Criticism of laws regarding child pornography, but do we really need a redirect with this page's title? It does not seem like something anyone would ever type. Rehoboam (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what harm a redirect would cause, and redirecting avoids WP:MAD problems. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Explodicle. We have articles on libertarian perspectives on abortion, libertarian perspectives on war, etc. so the redirect is not too implausible. Tisane (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination.
Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn.
Consensus is merge and the redirect is a minor issue Thanks, Rehoboam (talk) 01:07, 25 February 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. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Blackwood[edit]

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

Not notable Disolveinarow (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment It was also a BLP without sources. Added two and tidied it up a bit. Now as one significant independant source discussing his work as a ghost writer. Any one find another, and then we can keep it? Edgepedia (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan Gold, albeit co-authored was on the New York Times best selling list. Stubby, but notable, keep Edgepedia (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I found this, which contains the sentence "Grant Blackwood wrote with such visual excitement and the details of his characters' surroundings are sharp, clean, and chillingly alive with frightening realism that I found myself to be there in the middle of it all," (significant critical attention per WP:CREATIVE? You decide.) and my google news search turned up another story as well, but the link is dead. I'll see if I can turn up anything else. Cerebellum (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: an interview with Blackwood on the experience of working with Clive Cussler. Keep. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edison on Innovation: 102 Lessons in Creativity for Business and Beyond[edit]

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

Not notable Disolveinarow (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: a fascinating exploration of one of the most celebrated and innovative minds, best-selling author... cuts through the myths and reverence surrounding Edison’s “genius”.... While many of us believe that creativity, like genius, is something that just happens by chance or destiny, Edison’s life demonstrates that creativity of the very highest order can indeed be summoned up at will.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prafulla D. Chawathe[edit]

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

Not enough to be qualified as wiki notable, She (Professor & Mathematician) fails to WP:PROF kaeiou (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--kaeiou (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. H-index is 2. I followed the link and found International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp, India at the International Mathematical Olympiad, etc. These ought to be deleted as well. StAnselm (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Search could be P. D. Chawathe a.k.a P. Bongale --kaeiou (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Google Scholar seems to be doing this person a disservice: it finds no citations for her paper "A geometry associated with the Steiner system S (24, 8, 5)," but I can find several in Google Books. Still not enough, though. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:03, 25 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin O. Andreasen[edit]

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

Non-notable associate professor. Does not meet WP:PROF. Listed as having notability and BLP sources problems since December 2008. Baron Larf 09:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few publications for an associate prof. The article claims notability mainly on a paper that lays out the "cladistic concept of race" entitled A New Perspective on the Race Debate. However, in the >10 years this paper has been in print, WoS shows only 19 citations to it. The rest of her published papers have combined citations of 10 and her h-index is 3 and even by (the usually more permissive) GS, her h-index is only 6. No books, though a few chapters, etc. – fails WP:PROF #1 by a country mile. The article makes no other claims that might pass other parts of PROF. With all due respect, the subject is a remarkably average academic. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on basis of investigations above: another BLP that is too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 28 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Ferro[edit]

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

Having searched I can find no evidence that the article's subject meets WP:BIO requirements. Clint Ferro, concerning the same person, was deleted via AfD in April 2008, which is why I have not taken this to PROD in the first instance. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Ferro AfD discussion from '08: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clint_Ferro Gonzonoir (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted article. THF (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't tag it for speedy under that rationale because

This article was actually created 6 days before Clint Ferro was deleted in April 2008, and
I can't see the text of the deleted Clint Ferro to determine the similarity. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. -RobertMel (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoblinX[edit]

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

This software distribution does not appear to be the subject of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a Brazilian Linux distro. I found some coverage: [57] Linux.com, [58] MakeUseOf (site looks ok: [59] [60] [61], cited by other more serious media, might even deserve an article here; the newer article is by same author as the linux.com one, Susan Lipton, so allowable pe WP:SPS anyway), there are a few more articles on her own site, not all written by her [62] [63] (Susan Lipton = srlinuxx), also in other language [64] IDG Germany, [65] LinuxUser, [66] CHIP (magazine) Turkey; coverage probably exists in Portuguese as well. Pcap ping 06:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think any of those are any good. Linux.com can hardly be described as independent, since this is just a Linux distribution (and the fact that Linux has innumerable distributions makes it rather unlikely that any specific one will be notable). Makeuseof is a blog, and they are not reliable sources. Tuxmachines.org is bloggish as well, and does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy as far as I'm aware. The German sources look slightly less inappropriate, but their coverage seems to be the sort that every bit of software could be expected to get. The final source is in Turkish, which I do not understand, so I can't say anything about that. Reyk _YO! 09:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, of course. Linux, let alone all distros aren't owned/produced by Linux.com; that was just a an on-line publication with that fortuitous name (it ceased functioning as a real magazine circa 2008 when the domain was sold, but Linux is still around). MakeUseOf has editorial staff, and is cited by other reliable source in computing, and even mainstream media WaPo, PC World, Salon, Haaretz, CNBC. It's no different than Lifehacker, which also labels itself a blog. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, which I don't really agree with. Besides, various Linux distros aren't identical, or there would be no market for more than one of them. I did discard as source distrowatch.com, which is indeed just a database of linux distros. WP:N is the guideline, and those articles I listed satisfy it in my view. Pcap ping 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would agree however to a merge of all distros in Category:Slackware (except Slackware itself) to a single article, perhaps Slackware–derived Linux distributions, where it would be easier to compare them, and write just the specific difference for each one. But this is a matter best discussed at WP:LINUX. Pcap ping 19:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage by third-part sources. Lechatjaune (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in any reliable source indicating notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:45, 26 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hillel Weinberg[edit]

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

Non-notable son of the founder of Aish HaTorah, who succeeded his father as rosh yeshiva 1 year ago and has not made any news. The article basically rehashes the Aish HaTorah page Yoninah (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited, individual not wiki-notable in own right (although may be a chashuva talmid chochom) we already have articles on his father and on Aish itself. Avi (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is head of a yeshiva that has 26 full-time branches on 5 continents. Over 100,000 people per year attend Aish events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by אחים ואחיות קדושים שלי (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of Aish is not in question here. Joe407 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While notability is not inherited, the head of a major organization is considered notable. I would apply WP:PROF #6: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society".
I would like to hear thoughts on whether I am correctly interpreting this clause. Other deletion discussions I've seen on this type of case seem split.Joe407 (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Wikipedia:PROF#Notes_and_examples #13 seems to support my interpretation. Joe407 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe407: I have no problem with mentioning Rabbi Hillel Weinberg as the successor to Rabbi Noah Weinberg on the Noah Weinberg page, nor to stating that Rabbi Hillel Weinberg is the rosh yeshiva of Aish HaTorah on the Aish HaTorah page. But there is nothing notable to say about him to warrant his own page. Yoninah (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Week Keep - After rereading the article as per Yoninah's comments, the article has very little content. At this point the man has done nothing notable. If we keep this it should be only on the technicality of his being the dean of Aish Hatorah as I noted above. If the closing admin feels that I am misapplying the WP:PROF policy, then the article should be deleted. Joe407 (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The number one consideration in deciding the notability of a person is whether the sources provided are reliable sources from which to write a biography. If the sources are reliable, if the information in the biography is sourced to those sources, then I would consider a keep !vote here. Woogee (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woogee: Please read the article before you vote. There are no sources proving notability, only sources used for a sketchy birth-and-lineage biography. Are you saying that if my biography is posted somewhere on the internet, I could be considered notable, too? Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply because he is now an important person to know about as the nominal head of the Aish HaTorah conglomorate and because of his lineage and the key institution he heads. Prince Harry and Jenna Bush have done nothing notable themselves (even tho' papers write about them) but they get their own articles simply because of whose kids they are and their dynastic lineage. He's obviously an Israeli, not well-known outside of Israel, but he is already being invited as a prominent speaker at important Orthodox events. Don't underestimate this guy. There will be more sources with time, and it's good to remember Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. IZAK (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK - I'm going to disagree with your reasoning here. The policy of Don't demolish the house applies to the content and style of an article not to the notability of a subject. If there were sufficient sources and clear notability but the article did not express those well you could then apply "Don't demolish the house". In this case, the subject is not independently notable. Joe407 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a well known and famous Rabbi in Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunextuesday (talk • contribs) 05:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant! Unless you can provide sources that establish him as a "well known and famous Rabbi", WP does not consider him one. Also, I think you will have a difficult time establishing his notability to the extent that he deserved a WP article based on how famous a Rabbi he is. Joe407 (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the comments: I hate to mention this but I think we should always translate into English any comments in Hebrew or Yeshivaish as the majority of Wikipedians are not Hebrew scholars. Whereas some of us would use the term Rosh Yeshivah or Talmid Chacham in the middle of an English sentence, their use comes out as gobbledygook to many others who therefore would be lost in the discussion. I was at an Interseminary retreat last week and I found myself constantly being asked to translate words like Shabbat or Haftarah, words that I would never give a second thought to. In order to save the embarrassment or the misunderstanding of others, I suggest that we attempt to translate any non-obvious terms. Valley2city^‽ 06:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least in this discussion, all of the terms (Rosh Yeshivah, Talmid Chacham, Rabbi, Yeshiva, etc.) could be linked. Linking would be better (IMHO, and this is a wiki, what good is a wiki without links) than a simple translation as it gives readers a fuller understanding of the term, and doesn't confuse people who are familiar with Hebrew. Related note: I'm assuming that talmid chochom, used by Avi above, is an alternative transliteration of talmid chacham. If so, a redirect is probably in order. I wasn't sure about chashuva, so I looked it up; distinguished or esteemed, correct? Google is our friend. Wine Guy~Talk 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That's a good idea to link non-obvious terms. However, I think this should not be excessive so people don't have to chase countless links and be confused by articles on a single term in order to participate in AfD. This is a benefit of having a wiki, but it can get very confusing. However it will raise knowledge of many of these terms. Valley2city^‽ 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that Joe407's interpretation of WP:PROF is correct, and that as rosh yeshivah of Aish HaTorah, Rabbi Weinberg is in fact notable per our guidelines. Wine Guy~Talk 09:21, 3 March 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. Article does not prove notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Powers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fifth place finisher on Survivor: Panama, with no other notable accomplishments. Prior precedent includes Andria "Dreamz" Herd, Cassandra Franklin, Kenward "Boo" Bernis, Bruce Kanegai, ... all of which have been turned into redirects to the season in question. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect I'm a big fan of Survivor, but this is yet another non-notable contestant. Reywas92^Talk 03:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very colorful contestant. I learned from his entry that he wasn't in fact a Marketing Executive as portraited on the show. I say keep. 93.173.145.2 (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you discover that? The article doesn't say if he was or wasn't a marketing executive. In fact it doesn't really say much of anything. 98.212.141.192 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The history does, before someone wiped stuff for unknown reasons.--Milowent (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. ArticlesForRedemption 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Above !voter is currently blocked for being a loser sock of some sort.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 09:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability, and especially since there are no reliable sources from which to write a BLP. And whether or not the above !voter has been blocked, their opinion is valid. Woogee (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gets plenty of news coverage [67] when you search for his name and "Survivor". He was interviewed on many notable shows. Dream Focus 05:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From which sources can you compose a bio? Woogee (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a contestant on one of the most popular TV shows in the US and is referenced on Wiki pages for the show and that season - surely this is notable enough. I'd hope that if I was on a top-rated US network show for a season I'd at least warrant a Wiki stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabalong (talk • contribs) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (I copied this comment from talkpage, I suspect it was intended to go here.--Milowent (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, and suggest someone try to re-expand and source the article better.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That someone could be you! Go for it! I tried, but could not, and hence the AFD. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His notability mainly stems from one event (WP:ONEEVENT).--Pink Bull 18:38, 3 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

500 Level[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is an unencyclopedic mess of an article about a rowdy section of the stands at the Rogers Centre. Half of it glorifies the fistfights therein and the other half is a list of long home runs. A merge was proposed, but frankly I'm not certain there's anything there worth keeping. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 08:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:V. It's only claim to fame seems to be that people in the section disrupt the games with fistfights and by throwing things. There are no sources, and the references on the page are about a home run and the fan-caused delay, but they don't say anything about the Level 500 in question. One could argue it also violated WP:NEO, as "Level 500" seems to be a fan-made nickname for the seating area. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: The name "500 Level" is not a nickname; it is named as a seating area for the ease of selling tickets in the Rogers Centre since 1989 (when it was called SkyDome) before there were any fans in the stadium. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend Delete as notability has not been established for the topic, and it gives undue prominence to a specific seating tier. Isaac Lin (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, there's an article about the Dawg Pound, but I see your point. Woogee (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel that some things in the article might be appropriate to add to the Rogers Centre article, but the sourcing would have to be better. I would change to merge if it was sourced properly but as it stands that's not the case. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Comment: Appears to be a ripoff article of the similarly-unsourced 700 Level. May even be a hoax.) --J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing important to salvage from this article to the Rogers Centre. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No encyclopaedic content. Canterbury Tail talk 00:49, 2 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Macdonnell[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. a non notable local councillor. hardly anything in gnews [68]. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. -RobertMel (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that city councillors (with the possible exception of those in major cities) are not generally deemed notable just for holding office. I'd suggest that listing them in Coquitlam City Council would be the appropriate solution here, but even that title seems to be a redirect to Coquitlam rather than an independent article. Delete, though if an article about the council itself is ever initiated it would be acceptable to redirect the councillors' names to it. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:57, 2 March 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. author requested —SpacemanSpiff 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendology[edit]

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

Original Research

- Philippe 06:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research essay, stating in the article itself that it is a new theory. --bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author requested deletion here, so I speedy tagged the article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:21, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Water Partnership Central and Eastern Europe[edit]

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

Delete Not independently notable from Global Water Partnership. All of the footnotes were added by GWP Communication Officer Helene Komlos Grill (Gwpwiki) and the footnotes are only mentions of GWP CEE in primary sources, usually, if not entirely, from related organizations. For example, the citation to "Water Wiki" is to a GWP CEE taskforce report. There is no coverage in secondary sources. There is no need for a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. does not merit individual article. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep Kotniski (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of European countries[edit]

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

Srikant Kedia 06:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep A notable list. Covered in many sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. Why was this listed? No reason given. Outback the koala (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I'm not seeing any rationale for deleting this (either in the nomination, or a look at the article). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep wtf? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No doubt a notable list. -- XETELI ^{(HELLO • FOOTAGE)} 08:40, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miya's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Miya's

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

More advertisement than article Eeekster (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's got enough sources to prove notability. If you don't think it's neutral, fix it - AfD is not cleanup. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no gray area here. Miya's has some of the most authoritative and credible types of sources backing it up. I agree, it's not written in proper form, but I agree with Explodicle: AfD is not cleanup or wikify it - either of which would have been more appropriate. Artemis84 (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [69] Google news shows it got coverage in various places, including Yale Daily news[70]. Searching for the name and the address will probably result in even more Google news, but I see no reason to bother, the article clearly notable as is. Don't nominate something because you think it sounds like an advertisement. Its hard to talk about anything without someone making that claim. Dream Focus 08:54, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Tilley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hack (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary from IP (original nominator): Nominated for deletion. This person is not worthy of an entry on wikipedia and the most of the links do not work. - 203.100.58.40 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seem to be plenty of independent references including some reliable ones. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable - the subject has received non-trivial coverage from a number of reliable sources for radio and television work. Has three gold records (if that's worth anything).Hack (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has had a number of albums that have charted & the albums have recieved ARIA sales certifications - as well as citing a number of indendent references. Dan arndt (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snowball keep after looking at the first AFD. Clearly notable. But please remove the fair-use images with no retionales! :) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The links not working is not a valid reason to delete an article. Per all above, has charted and has been the significant subject of reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable radio personality. I am sceptical of the nominator's motives (the anon IP, not Hack) as there appears to have been a sustained campaign to delete this article. --Canley (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it should be noted Hack voted Keep immediately below his procedural filing of the IP's nomination. Orderinchaos 03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable (unfortunately). Orderinchaos 03:17, 2 March 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. Fails WP:BAND. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Funeral[edit]

(Was formerly mis-listed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Rose Funeral)

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

~~I am adding the following to the nomination, as it would make no sense without the main article:~~

~~-- Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Article deleted per its own ((afd)) Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has only been in existence for a 5 years, there aren't any notable band members or recordings. Hourick (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - This is a talk page and should thus go to MfD. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the intention was to nominate the article, rather than its talk page....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed... Hope it ddn't break anything.
Delete I doubt that the age of the band is relevant, the lack of notability is. Notorious, yes, notable, no. They've got one reliable source, which is hardly significant coverage. Also, see my comments on the article talk page. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 19:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out above !vote - it was referring to the talk page rather than the article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability per WP:BAND, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability 174.55.2.138 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How so? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability on the basis that they are signed to Metal Blade Records and working on their third release. If Dirty Little Rabbits can have a page, then so can Rose Funeral. User:willisx90 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.12.76 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dirty Little Rabbits is notable because it contains two (albeit questionably) notable members, therefore passing criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Rose Funeral does not. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 07:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added List of members of Rose Funeral to the nomination. It's already part of it's own afd, but it makes sense to list it here as well. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been deleted per its own ((afd)).Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am protecting the article because I just removed vandalism that resulted in the article being tagged for speedy deletion as nonsense. Dlohcierekim 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability per WP:BAND, no significant sources, no notable members, no notable recordings. - A7xandquantumtheory —Preceding unsigned comment added by A7xandquantumtheory (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just claiming this band "fails notability" per WP:BAND without actually reading the criterion is simply stupid. Rose Funeral at the very least passes criteria 1, 4 and maybe 5. Possibly others. I'd like to explain criteria 5, Metal Blade Records has a long history and has signed countless notable bands. Rose Funeral has two albums out (One on Metal Blade, one on Siege of Amida that apparently was re-released by Candlelight) and is about to release their third this year on Metal Blade. I know, that is a future event, but what is the point of deleting a band only to recreate the article later on? Also, Rose Funeral possibly also passes criteria 7. Do I need to mention the "UNO" incident? That has also certainly contributed coverage of this band in various news and magazine outlets. Joe Capricorn (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criteria 1 requires significant coverage on reliable sources, the only reliable sources I can see cited are about.com and allmusic. Together, they are not exactly a significant amount. Criteria 4: What reliable source would that be? Citation 5: requires two albums on major labels, you've only stated the significance of one of them. Criteria 7: How so? As for the Uno incident, see WP:FAME, for which I stick by my summary that notoriety is not necessarily notability. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Citation 5: Their debut album on Siege of Amida Records. I believe they are a part of Ferret records but this could be a gray area. If not, then Citation 5 does not apply to Rose Funeral... for now. They are working on a third album and that will most likely be released on Metal Blade, so if Rose Funoral(sic) is deleted, they'll be re-added later on. I could try to dig up links about criteria 1 and 4 but I don't feel like it, since in all honesty I don't care about Rose Funeral as a band, just the coverage of the Uno incident. Likewise this is likely my last post on the topic. Joe Capricorn (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Criteria 4- how exactly should we define a "reliable source"? By Googling "Rose Funeral Tour we see info from Metal Blade Records itself and some other websites. If a "reliable source" is expected to be some international news center then that would result in a ton of bands missing this criteria. (User talk: willisx90) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: OK, make that a "reliable third party source", as in one not affiliated with the tour, which was what I was intending by my comment. Surely that is a logical extension of the GN criteria? Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:Reliable sources — Gwalla | Talk 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The vandalism is extreme, and will likely not stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magson13 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This from one of the contributors to the vandalism. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not I edited the page at one point does not make my point any less valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magson13 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: As I added to the references, the majority of the content of this article was originally copied from [71], as of this revision. Since then, it looks as if content might have been copied backwards and forward numerous times, with very little attempt at attribution. I'm not sure what to do with this discovery, as last.fm bios are released under CC-BY-SA. Rich^(Contribs)/_{(Talk to me!)} I can haz review plz? 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. I am concerned that the initial mislisting and the circumstances leading to the page protection affected proper consideration of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:BAND. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:34, 4 March 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movable cellular automaton[edit]

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

Changing PROD to AfD. The reason given for the prod was "This is just a page for the authors research." The page has multiple issues but I don't think it should be deleted without due discussion. RDBury (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Movable cellular automaton" method sometime is called as "Movable cellular automata" method. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) There is redirection from "Movable cellular automata" to "Movable cellular automaton" in Wikipedia. Laesod (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article presents description of a numerical method in modern computational mechanics and must not be deleted. I agree that the current version of the page has to be corrected to meet Wikipedia requirements. Asmolin (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Looking at the article, I see a sufficiently long reference list to meet the general notability guideline. Without a compelling case that the article text is synthesis, I don't see a reason to delete the article. I do agree that the article needs improvement. —C.Fred (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve for meeting Wikipedia requirements. Krege (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it the most serious issue with the article is that it (at least the original version) seems to be about the author's own research. This brings up WP:COI issues and at the very least the article needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is balanced and represents a variety of unrelated sources. My other concern was the lack of secondary sources; none are given in the article and I was unable to find any myself. The subject does seem to have applications in a variety of different areas so I don't think WP:Notability should be a reason for deletion.--RDBury (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Their main paper has 58 citations in google scholar. There is some secondary coverage in the books listed in the article, but it's 1-2 paragraphs in each, e.g. [72] Pcap ping 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but is in serious need of a cleanup. It looks as though it's been quite roughly translated, for one. I'm curious as to why this came up in mathematics, as this is either a computer science or a physics topic, probably the latter. Sojourner001 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burka[edit]

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

Delete because article fails to meet WP:BIO. There are no independent secondary sources. The lead doesn't even say why Paul Burka is notable. There are two awards mentioned that might go a ways toward constituting minimal notability, if verified. But there is nothing there now. Why did he win those two awards? Has he won any others? Google searches are difficult, because Paul Burka is a political blogger, and as a result lots of other bloggers talk about him. Additionally, he has written a lot for the Texas Monthly, so he frequently shows up in "Paul Burka" searches as an author. He has a brief mention, page 136, in American Vertigo: Traveling America in the Footsteps of Tocqueville. --Bejnar (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant notability. -RobertMel (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Article doesn't mention why individual is notable. Information on his specific contributions would be neccesary to save the page. -alan1701 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 26 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramnath Chellappa[edit]

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

Subject is constantly spammed into the cloud computing article with a tenuous "first academic definition" that predates the term by well over a decade. It occurred to me that subject may not even be verifiably notable and sure enough his article was tagged with ((notability)). I further suspect WP:COI violations giving rise to WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV and other policy violations. -- samj _in^out 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is possible that he did coin that definition in 1997, possibly in the book Readings in electronic commerce. He was getting close to that idea in his 1996 article "The design and development of internet-and intranet-based collaboratories". --Bejnar (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true (I sincerely doubt it - and in any case it doesn't matter when the concept developed organically & independently... the role of identifying the theoretical possibility was filled by John McCarthy almost 40 years prior)... it's irrelevant for this discussion. The reason for mentioning it was to explain how we got to AfD. -- samj _in^out 08:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With GS h index of 10 he does not appear to pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xanthippe and per rank of associate professor. Ray^Talk 03:59, 26 February 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. Low participation despite the relist, and based on the discussion. Participants may want to consider whether merger could be an appropriate compromise, but since that was not raised in the discussion it didn't factor into my close. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOTC Vengence[edit]

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

Non-notable event, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page because it also asserts no notability, is unreferenced, and has no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources:[reply]

I am not sure what kind of dislike there seems for King of the Cage MMA, but am just trying to help build up a currently existing page or two with more information. Already included in the King of the Cage page is a list of previous events...that page doesn't have anything after 2004. I am trying to both bolster that list (with actual results) and add the events that have occurred since 2004. Vengeance itself was a very important event in the world of MMA. It was the national network debut of what is considered by many the third biggest USA MMA organization. I think that page should exist. If not on the main KOTC page, at least as part of the list of past events. If King of the Cage isn't important enough to list their events, you should go ahead and delete their page altogether. GUHoyas95 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - title's spelt wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability. It might be important to KOTC, but the HDNet debut of "what is considered by many the third biggest USA MMA organization" doesn't seem particularly notable in general. In American MMA there's a big gap between the UFC and KOTC. Athletic notability usually talks about competing at the highest level (and this isn't) and this surely doesn't pass WP:MANOTE. If it's so important to KOTC, than perhaps this should be merged into their article (with the correct spelling of vengeance). Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, I misspelled Vengeance (I did fix it however)--By your arguments, we should be eliminating many, many pages...including any minor league baseball league or team, certainly there is no room for any results of Eastern League (baseball) there's a big gap between Major League Baseball and AA Baseball. Maybe we should delete all minor college sports conferences like the Ivy League or the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference...heck college sports in general should go as there is a big gap between professional sports and amateur sports and we should only be talking about sports at its highest level. The simple fact was that there was an EXISTING link on the KOTC page to past events. It was both incomplete and the results of those events were non-existent. As a KOTC fan I thought it would be worthwhile to update the EXISTING list of events and also show the results. I thought that was the whole point of this website. I also thought that helping out would be fun. I maybe wrong on the first part, but it certainly appears like I am wrong on the second. GUHoyas95 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't advocate getting rid of the KOTC page (which would be equivalent to your conference analogy). This doesn't mean I believe we need the results of every Ivy League or AA game (not even the ones that are televised). I just would like you to explain what makes this event so notable. I don't consider being televised notable. Little League games are televised on ABC and ESPN, which are larger networks, and I don't see anyone claiming they're all notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every game result....2009 Akron Aeros season, Results of the 2009 Little League World Series. Look, you guys can do what you want, but why have a list of past events page, if there is no information on those events. GUHoyas95 (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could point out that regional Little League tournament games are shown by ESPN, but I'd like to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please just show me the notability of your event. So far the only point you made was that it was televised, and I don't believe that alone makes an event notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you absolutely already pointed out that regional Little League tournament games are on bigger networks than HDNet it was just your previous post....what you also said was "I don't see anyone claiming they're all notable."....well apparently somebody does because the page Results of the 2009 Little League World Series exists. Again, I am just saying that someone visiting the King of the Cage page has the option of clicking on the list of past events. When you go to that page it would seem to me to make a whole lot of sense to be able to find out the results. But since you are so stuck on the notable thing....how about three title fights, and fights including nine time UFC vet and Ultimate Fighter Season 4 cast member Rich Clementi, UFC,WEC and Strikeforce vet Mike Kyle, and UFC and PRIDE vet Travis Wiuff. But I don't think this is the point. The point is that there is a list of events...results would be nice. I am done arguing. If this page is allowed to stand, I plan to go ahead and update all of the past events--to the extent that the results are available from reputable sources. If not, I won't waste my time.GUHoyas95 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:54, 24 February 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. Consensus here definitely seems in favour of delete rather than rename, but without prejudice to creation of a new article at Skopje 2014. I'm happy to provide a copy of the deleted article if anyone wants to work on converting it at the new title. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welthauptstadt Mazedonia[edit]

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

Apparent hoax / attack page claiming that the city of Skopje is planned to be turned into a monumental capital on the model of Hitler's Welthauptstadt Germania. Quotes one semi-reliable source (an academic presentation mirrored on a blog), but that text, while critical of the architectural development of the city, makes no such exotic claims. A Youtube video cited as an alleged "government view" is quite certainly also a hoax. Photoshopped images documenting the alleged plans are taken from the same hoax video. Otherwise unsourced. Suggest speedy deletion as attack page, but certainly deletion as hoax. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have to correct myself, in parts: incredible as it sounds, the youtube video apparently is in fact genuine, and related plans under the name of "Skopje 2014" seem to exist [73] [74]. Still, the connection to "Welthauptstadt Germania" is unsourced OR, and the page as a whole thus still an attack page (though, I must personally say, a well-targeted one.) A new page about Skopje 2014, or preferably just a section in the main Skopje article, might still be justifiable, but this page in its present form is useless even as a basis for writing it. (Even if the text can be rewritten, the images will need to be deleted from Commons and treated as non-free here, which means reducing them to only one or two.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Skopje2014 - There is a great amount of significant coverage from reliable sources like Balkan Insight and EUobserver.[75][76]. Many more here. And these are just English language sources. Probably a lot more in Macedonian. Obviously any OR POV fork (recreating Naziism?) needs to be deleted and reliable sources are not designating it "Welthauptstadt Mazedonia." But the topic does appear notable.--Oakshade (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I could agree with this, a formal question arises: if we move and rewrite it, should the redirect from the present title stay? If not, we may still need to keep this AfD open to get a formal decision on it. (BTW, I would prefer Skopje 2014 over Skopje2014.) Oh, and sorry for jumping the gun with my initial assumption of a hoax. The amount of bad taste in this project is so staggering I simply couldn't believe my eyes ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object if the name "Welthauptstadt Mazedonia" was deleted after the rename, if that's possible. I have no opinion if it's Skopje 2014 or Skopje2014, as long as one redirects to the other as both appear to be used in reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The project is very much true, and this page is not a hoax. The name of the page initially chosen to be Welthauptstadt Mazedonia is because of two things: the academic paper cited in the article that explains the idea for a "grand national capital" vision for the city and the right wing government who is behind it whose politics and policies are often regarded as somewhat Nazi in the Macedonian public. --Novica (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would actually personally agree that this is a godawful project and the analogy with "Germania" is quite apt (in terms of the esthetics, if not the ideology), you do realise now that it is not legitimate to use Wikipedia to promote your own critical assessment of the project, right? Please read WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view, in case you haven't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. I haven't written anything that's my personal critical assessment. I didn't chose the name of the article and even softened the wording around that. I was planning to write more to elaborate the official view, as well as of the critics. I was not aware of the WP:No original research (I assume this is for the direct quotes), but if the article stays I'm sure we could make a good article. When I started writing stuff here, I was really up to making a good article, but I haven't had any time in the last week to write or reference more text. Sorry. Novica (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I guess we can't write as fast as they are making the announcements for more new buildings: http://pravda.gov.mk/novost_detail.asp?lang=mak&id=517 http://pravda.gov.mk/documents/2_Krivicen_sud.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novica (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be primarily original research in violation of Wikipedia policy. Even if the project is notable, this article ought to be rewritten from scratch, and certainly not at this title, which appears to be rather POV. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to violate WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the defender agrees that this is not a proper title. Legitimate content, if any, could appear in a new NPOV, no original research version under an appropriate title. --Bejnar (talk) 05:57, 24 February 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. Black Kite 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. William Holden[edit]

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

Only slightly notable reference is from the Liverpool Daily Post, which doesn't seem to be a huge WP:RS in terms of inclusion. Other refs are either from his own site or blogs. -Zeus-^u|c 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the article has many issues. Sources are present and have a bit of standard verification to them (though not ideal). Is it just me or can anyone access the sewells site thats listed in the refs? Alot in here is self promoting i find. Personally Im seeing the book more notable than the individual here based on whats provided. Ill look further into this as wellOttawa4ever (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - in its present state I see nothing more than the official site of the firm he is head of, plugs for his book and other non-RSs to plus one minor local newspaper to "verify" his notability from. Which is sort of inevitable for this kind of person, to be fair. If any one can cite from more RS(s) I'll switch the other way but how strong that vote would be depends on how notable the source(s) seem(s) to suggest he is. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Per my rationale above, and mostly lack of reliable sourcing. I am sitting on deletion at this time.Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:34, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trust as a service[edit]

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

Complete, non-notable, unverifiable nonsense. -- samj _in^out 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic. original research. No sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research RadioFan (talk) 13:02, 25 February 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThreadSanitizer[edit]

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

A very specialised piece of software with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--yutsi (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The page about ThreadSanitizer is my first article on wikipedia and I might be misunderstanding wikipedia's rules. Are you suggesting to delete the article because the subject is not worth it? Or because there is no proof that it's wort it? Or because the article itself is bad? How much time do I have to address the concerns? (Last time the article was deleted 5 minutes after it was marked for deletion). I admit that the article is not yet complete, but I don't really understand why it has to be deleted and what do I need to do to avoid it. Thanks! Ksserebr (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Ksserebr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as not notable. Ksserebr, it's "Wikipedia:Notability" you should read to get an understanding of the objections. "Worth it" isn't really terminology we use. --Griseum (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a very useful tool in its particular "niche", but it just isn't notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Here are the links where the subject of this article is mentioned. I have to admit that some of these links are not 100% "Independent of the subject", since I know (at least virtually) most of the users of the tool.

[77] [78] [79] [80] [81] If this does not satisfy 'notability', please go forward and delete the article since I won't be able to bring more proofs. Ksserebr (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valgrind#Tools, where it's already mentioned. The first link above is valgrind's site, and mentions this as a patch/variant. Not worthy of a full Wikipedia article right now, but it deserves a mention in that article. Pcap ping 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to http://www.mcst.ru/news.shtml#100129 (google transled page: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcst.ru%2Fnews.shtml&sl=ru&tl=en ) there was a seminar about the subject held by MCST. Some info about MCST could be found there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_%28computer%29 77.35.27.153 (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the seminar was held by MCST and MCST is the only one reporting that as "news" it's not adding notability. --Griseum (talk) 06:15, 26 February 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) Wine Guy~Talk 08:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cabbie Richards[edit]

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

Host of half-hour tv show on marginally notable Canadian cable network. Unreferenced BLP fanpage; does not meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. Typical WP:PUFF sentence from article: "In July 2009 Richards was invited to participate in the 5th annual Kevin Weekes Celebrity Charity Golf Classic hosted by Kevin Weekes, the golf classic was held in Barbados from July 2-6." THF (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article is on a person and not a show (sorry THF), it will benefit from cleanup and proper sourcing of individual who meets WP:GNG for coverage from 2001 through 20210. Sources dealing with the individual... Toronto Star 1, Los Angeles Times 1, Canoe, Toronto Star 2, Canada.com 1, Toronto Star 3, Toronto Star 4, Toronto Star 5, SLAM 1, SLAM 2, Toronto Star 6, Toronto Star 7, Waterloo Record, Toronto Star 8, Sportsnet, Toronto Star 9, Report on Business, ~~Canadian Coprorate News~~, and Newswire, et al. would allow consideration that bringing this article into line with WP:MOS might be seen as a surmountable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I checked the first three of your sources, and none of them provide anything encyclopedic, and only one, the Canoe piece, is actually about Richards, though it provides no useful information that can really be in the article other than that "Richards is from Toronto." I'm not inclined to try to read through the other twelve. What's your best example of an article that demonstrates notability? Don't just throw a ton of mud at the wall and demand that it stick. THF (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... fair enough. I struck the ones editors would have to pay to read if they do not have accounts. Of the remaining, some deal about the man in depth, and others speak about or mention him and his work. Still enough to show the man meets WP:GNG and that the article could be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis. Keep in mind this is after I asked MQS to remove the WP:PUFF from his list.

Canoe: This is an interview with Richards, but it's astonishingly contentless.
Toronto Star 2: Richards has a TV show.
Canada.com 1: Interview with Richards, but again contentless. He thinks Saskatoon is cold.
Toronto Star 3: Mentions Richards in passing in article about The Score.
Toronto Star 4: One sentence about Richards (really about his show)
SLAM 1: Richards gave a hockey player a pair of underpants.
SLAM 2: Not about Richards.
Waterloo Record: Short profile of Richards from which one could create a stub.
Toronto Star 8: One sentence in an article complaining about "third-rate comedy" on sports channels.
Sportsnet: Not about Richards.
Report on Business: Not about Richards. He'll be at a charity event.
Newswire: French version of Report on Business press release.

Conclusion. One can wikilawyer a claim that this meets WP:GNG, by taking the one substantive article and creating a Frankenstein from all the passing mentions and joking interviews, but not a claim that this meets WP:BIO unless one disregards WP:NOT. MQS, your argument would be much stronger if you didn't insist on including the obvious WP:LARD in your lists. When you give articles like this as a reason for notability, it demonstrates the exact opposite. My opinion does not change: delete. THF (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion. Reaching a consensus without inclusion of animus is why we are at this AFD. The nominator, as the person wishing deletion, has offered his personal analysis of sources I shared after a cursory search. Others may determine that the subject's being covered or even mentioned or even referred to for many years in reliable sources meets WP:V for some pieces of information and perhaps even the GNG overall... specially as the guidelines do not mandate that all sources must be specifically about the subject. Since even the nominator grants that one of the sources might support maintaining a stub, and as guideline instructs that even a stub is acceptable if sourced, the cleanup of an article through regular editing is a surmountable issue and not cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misinterpret meeting WP:GNG as requiring the non-deletion of an article. WP:NOT says otherwise, as does WP:GNG itself. THF (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did I misinterpret this comment "Waterloo Record: Short profile of Richards from which one could create a stub."? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a necessary, but far from sufficient, rationale for a "keep" !vote. Wikipedia is not a directory. THF (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My "rationale" is that the subject is notable (even if only minor and only to Canadians) and that the article would benefit from cleanup and sourcing. And it's good that the article about the person is not a directory. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And worth mentioning in regards his minor notability to Canadians, as reported by the Alliston Herald], the the man was chosen to be part of several Black History Month events in February 2010, as representating African-Canadians. Yes, another minor mention, but required per WP:V and speaks toward his notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references provided by MichaelQSchmidt above. They don't all relate to this person, but the following ones do, and seem sufficient for notability: [82],[83], [84], [85], [86] Robofish (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 05:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, cable networks aren't "marginally notable". A cable channel with strictly local distribution may be marginal, but one which has national carriage rights, as this one does, is unequivocally notable. That said, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single personality on the network is notable — WP:NOTINHERITED and all that — but the determination is made by the depth and quality of sources, not by subjective assessments of whether we care about Canadian cable sportscasters or not. The sources here seem to demonstrate sufficient notability, so keep — but make sure that they actually get added to the article, as I've far too often seen people trot out sources to prove notability in an AFD discussion without actually doing anything to get them into the article where they belong. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources, although I hear what THF is saying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:40, 27 February 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. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tiger[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, and others ttonyb (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THF (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Just blogs and blurbs. --Bejnar (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poetic entry, but little of note. In particular, this is another article that wants us to believe that getting WP:PUFF awards of the type "X under X" (in this case, "30 under 30" from an LGBT-oriented website) equate to notability – they do not. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 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. Replacing one irrelevant reference with another confirms that this is a deliberate hoax. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed Surreal Recall Disorder[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination; nom'd for CSD as a hoax; I'm not comfortable killing it under that grounds. Sending it here in hopes that we can confirm or deny existence. - Philippe 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there is a chance that this is for real, the phrase "making scholastic comprehension very difficult and often requiring those afflicted to take copious notes at the end of the day" sets off my bullshit detector with the possibility of this being a university-student-style hoax, or some sort of elaborately etiolated attack page. My understanding of WP:FRINGE suggests that if the scientific claim is far-fetched, the standard of proof required is somewhat higher; according to the talk page, this has nothing but "mistaken" citations. As the nominator suggests, I'd like some reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in DSM IV nor in DSM V draft. Hoax. --Bejnar (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally tagged this for speedy delete as a hoax based on the fact that (1) there were zero mentions of the syndrome whatsoever in Medline, Psycinfo, or SCOPUS; (2) Google hits consisted ONLY of links to items generated by the inclusion in wikipedia; (3) the original reference cited by the contributor was about albinism and nowhere mentioned the disorder (later claimed as a copy and paste error by original editor); and (4) the article itself cites that there are only 4 known cases worldwide with 1 in the United States. I hadn't gotten around to checking DSM IV (or the DSM V draft) but see that Bejnar has done so and hasn't found any support. I'm just trying to point out even if this wasn't correctly tagged, it wasn't an irrational snap decision. I've even got a request via interlibrary loan for the latest reference cited and posted on the article's talk page to the original editor that I wouldn't do anything to the article until I saw that article. In any case, the lack of evidence is pretty overwhelming that this syndrome doesn't warrant a wikipedia article (and I will grant that it might not be a "hoax" even though it has all of the hallmarks of one, albeit possibly inadvertently). -Quartermaster (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits from scholar [87] books [88] and pubmed [89] Therefore does not appear to be a real disorder. The ref [90] does not appear to discuss this term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reinforcing that this is a hoax: When I challenged the originator of the article that the initial reference used to support the existence of this syndrome had nothing do with the syndrome (it dealt with albinism) I was told:

The reference is a [sic] miss-paste and as such should be disregarded. The disorder, however, and quite unfortunately, is quite real. As being a caretaker for a close friend suffering from DSRD, I find it immediately offensive for it to be called a hoax. I think the people seeking awareness for this condition would also find it quite offensive. Again, the reference is a mistake, which will be rectified shortly. --Nerushing (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2010

The "rectification" consisted of removing the first cite and replacing it with this:

Ross D, Heward K, Salawu Y, Chamberlain M, Bhakta B. Upfront and enabling: Delivering specialist multidisciplinary neurological rehabilitation. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation [serial online]. February 2009;16(2):107-113. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 23, 2010.

I just received the full article for the above citation which was substituted for the "mis-pasted" original reference, and like the initial article referenced there is absolutely nothing relevant in it regarding the disorder as described. It appears the original editor is engaged in willful chicanery. -Quartermaster (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable. Probably a prank. Fences&Windows 02:06, 28 February 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. There seems to be agreement that too many non-notable acts are listed, but beyond that there's no agreement. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of covers of U2 songs[edit]

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

A trivial article. There is no evidence from reliable, secondary sources (WP:RS) that the phenomena of covering U2 songs is particularly notable or significant. All relevant information can be merged into the correct single/album articles. ArticlesForRedemption 01:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete! Ginormous example farm and coatrack. Almost all of these acts are non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the whole reason this article was first created was to prevent the clutter building up in the individual song articles and present it all in a better and more controllable format in a single article; in some cases, the lists built up so much that they took up more content then the actual songs! This article presents a simple and easily worked and viewed method of presenting that article. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically WP:ITSUSEFUL is your argument. What about the fact that this lists a metric buttload of not-individually-notable artists? Ever heard of an examplefarm? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't heard of an "examplefarm" so you'll have to excuse me on that one. Also, I haven't merely said "it's useful" and then left the discussion at that; I provided context behind my reasoning. The article is a useful navigation tool and has been a success in acting as a central hub for this information. I would hardly consider artists such as the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, DC Talk, Kane, Mission UK, Bellefire, Les Paul, The Bravery, Kurt Nilsen, and Dashboard Confessional (to name just a few) as "not notable"; and if this information is not notable enough for this one article, what makes it any more notable for the individual song articles as the original nominator suggests? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that it's indiscriminate, listing random garage bands and otherwise non-notable acts? If you insist on keeping it, let's prune the detritus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning the detritus is fine by me, though that will take some considerable time and what you and I agree on to be notable acts may differ. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the non-notable artists are the ones that are redlinked or don't have articles: Trent, Disco Saints, People Mover and that's just the first couple songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant readership - well in excess of 100 hits per day. We are afterall creating articles for readers (and not afd nominators). High quality and each entry is referenced. (and, very odd behaviour from he nominator - a very "new" editor who's sole activity seems to be nominating afds. hmmm) --Merbabu (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - OK, so add that page to my justifications for keep. There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion.... As for "otters" and "bats", please speak plainly. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, I think that's his user name... Lampman (talk)

DeleteNot needed--yutsi (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. This stand-alone list is too broad in scope and indiscriminate in its nature; it therefore isn't a suitable list topic. For the purposes of comparison, consensus at a similar AfD for a list of Smashing Pumpkins covers was to delete. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THIS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this curious mix of primary-sourced material and unknown bands. Cover version is a notable concept, U2 is a notable band, but the intersect is entirely arbitrary. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SALAT. The list is not indiscriminate as the title defines its scope. And much of it is sourced to secondary reliable sources. But, per User:TenPoundHammer, the non-notable or non-secondary sourceable bands need to be pruned. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only because U2 are one of the most covered bands ever. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is well referenced and it keeps lots of cruft off the song pages. It would probably be a good idea to prune the acts without articles, unless good evidence can be presented that they are in fact notable (though it seems almost impossible that a truly notable band at this point wouldn't have its own Wikipedia page.) Lampman (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I've already said, I'm amenable to to pruning the non-notable acts. I won't bother undertaking that until after this AFD is concluded though, since there are more pressing obligations on my time than shortening an article that may end up deleted anyways. However, it's worth noting that many of the unlinked singers, bands and albums in the lower three-quarters of the article are unlinked solely because they are already linked in previous sections per WP:OVERLINK (for example, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is linked in "All I Want Is You", so for mentions in "Desire", "One", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", etc. they are not linked again). As a result, much less may be removed than people are envisaging through a quick skim for blue links. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I voted "keep", and it seems like that will be the result. I would highly encourage pruning, but also linking all linkable acts. In the spirit of ignoring all rules, I think it would be sensible to link all acts in every section simply because people might be led to this article through a redirect leading to the section on one specific song. In that case it won't help them much that the act is linked higher up. Lampman (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-referenced, interesting, non-trivial information. gidonb (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a mere catalog of information. Many cover versions aren't notable, and we don't need a list article to catalog them all. Notable covers are best discussed in the context of individual song articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove non-notable cover version via normal editing. It's quite possible that someone would be interested in finding notable covers without wanting to read every single song article. Polarpanda (talk) 13:49, 4 March 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 More than just a possible hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Benjamin Phillips IV[edit]

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

Possible hoax RadManCF (talk) 01:27, 24 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of U2[edit]

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

A content fork off the main article U2 article in bullet-point form. This is made redundant by U2#History. ArticlesForRedemption 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - It's a much more detailed account of the section you identified of the U2 article. And, it will grow further. The two are not comparable. There is a precedence in The Beatles timeline. It's not a fork, rather it's a more detailed and factual account of the summary style U2 article. Would you suggest, for example, that Timeline of Indonesian History is redundant to History of Indonesia which in turn is redundant to Indonesia#History?

What actual policy/guideline is this violating?

Page view statistics show that the article is getting on average above 100 hits per day. That show's significant enough readership - we are afterall building an encyclopedia for readers.

Also, in your very limited history on wikipedia, you only seem involved in afd's. Very strange indeed - IMO. --Merbabu (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:USEFUL, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:AGF. Read these please. ArticlesForRedemption 02:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part relates to the afd? And more to the point, which policy are using for the creation of the afd in the first place - which I already asked. --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you please advise your position on the Indonesia examples I provided - there are some clear parallels between this and the U2 history-related pages.

Keep The history of U2 covers more than 30 years, and it is simply impossible to condense all of this history into an already crammed section of an overly large article. If this article was written as "History of U2" in prose would that still be eligible for nomination? It is the same content in different forms. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a pretty massive well references article. -OberRanks (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination is faulty, its just a question of organization, not inclusion, and nominator is currently blocked for being a suspected shit-stirrer.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is by a blocked user - who hasnt had a checkuser passed yet - both of these qualities suggest the afd is faulty in process and should be closed as keep Satu Suro 09:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of a music group of this size and notability is enhanced by giving its timeline its own sub-article. If there was a lot less to say, then that wouldn't be the case. Valid content fork under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, not POV fork. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliably sourced information in more detail than can be covered in the overall U2 article. Rlendog (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The timeline gives a lot of important facts and date, that may not fit too well into the U2#History article is also well sourced. Kiwinil (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why tear down when we can build up? Lampman (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and close, please.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 2 March 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) Wine Guy~Talk 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Tuller[edit]

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

Unnotable hotel. Not a historical building, and has since been demolished so clearly never was one. A few random mentions of things that happened at it does not make it notable, nor does its being used for conventions and banquets. Prod removed by User:DGG with reason of "that it's no longer there is irrelevant to notability . Sources added, from G News archive. First look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE.", during which he added a few more trivial mention of a fire that occurred and someone found dead there. None of which incur any notability on the hotel itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the sources are only incidental and don't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contrary to the nom's claim that this was "Not a historical building", the book Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants does an in-depth multi-paged profile of the hotel. Taking DGG's advice and following WP:BEFORE would've prevented that misjudgement. The nom also seems to be under the curious impression that if a building was demolished, I could not have been historical. I suppose the Globe Theatre (Newcastle Street) should be AfD'd as that was demolished. --Oakshade (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make it a historical building. It is not a historical landmark (hence its being demolished). And the book does not give it a "multi-page profile" it is a book of 200 postcards of the "lesser-known second-class" by its own description, a few of which have this hotel on it. Try to remember WP:AGF and refrain from making personal remarks that have nothing to do with the discussion. 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the point. Many buildings considered historical were not designated historical landmarks and were demolished. The Ambassador Hotel was extremely historic, not a historical landmark and was demolished. The original Pennsylvania Station (New York City) was extremely historical, was not an historical landmark and demolished. The theatre mentioned above was historic, but not designated an historical landmark and that was demolished. And that source, Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants, profiles this topic for 8 pages. 8 pages is "multi-paged" to me. We go by secondary sources to describe what's "historic", not a single Wikipedia user's opinion.--Oakshade (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also go by what multiple, reliable-sources consider historic, not a single locally written work that states itself that it is a listing of second-class, forgotten hotels and does not claim that they are historical beyond throwing a catchphrase in its title. The other hotels you mention also had significant coverage in reliable sources to show they were actually historic, versus random local newspaper stories that mention it as being a place an event was held or a the scene of a crime, and has nothing to do with the hotel itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. You left out the part of that book summary that also states "Some of Detroits larger hotels were architectural masterpieces, nationally known, and were the center of social activities." The book profiled both types. It's not crystal clear if the author considered this hotel an "architectural masterpiece" or a "lesser-known second-class" one. As the author indicates this hotel was considered the "grand dame of Grand Circus Park," it probably was the former. Another source indicates a notable nationally popular orchestra, the Gerald Marks's Hotel Tuller Orchestra, was based there so it seems in fact it was "the center of social activities." Either way the significant coverage is still there. Oh, and another historical hotel that was demolished, The Dunes. I'll keep that on watch in case you AfD that for the same curious "has since been demolished" reason. --Oakshade (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the introductory text in Chapter 1: "Most of the largest and better-known hotels have been included-- the Tuller, the Pontchartrain, the Statler, the Book Cadillac, the Detroit Leland, the Webser, and the Whittier--as well as some smaller and lesser-known hotels including the Andoria, the North Pole, and the Yorba." That does make it crystal-clear that the author does not consider the Tuller a "lesser-known" hotel. Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to actual substantial coverage, not the mentions in passing in random news stories currently in the article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade's source "Detroit's Historic Hotels and Restaurants". Also an account of its construction can be found in The city of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922, volume 3, and a detailed article concerning its management appears in Hotel Monthly, volume 34 issue 399, published in 1926. (The link for Hotel Monthly won't show it but you can see some of the text on this Google books search). These sources seem reliable, independent, and their coverage seems to be significant both in the regular English sense of the word and the "non-trivial" sense required by WP:N. The article therefore passes WP:N and should be retained. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Hotel Tuller is documented in the National Park Service's Historic American Buildings Survey. ("The Historic American Buildings Survey is the nation's first federal preservation program, begun in 1933 to document America's architectural heritage.") That's a slam-dunk demonstration of notability. Andrew Jameson (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The various sources listed above and the fact that the building is documented in the Historic American Buildings Survey demonstrate rather clearly that this building is notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:17, 1 March 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. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Math Lab[edit]

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

The majority of the other articles about Sit Down, Shut Up episodes were redirected to List of Sit Down, Shut Up episodes according to this discussion. Three episodes were omitted from the discussion because, whether they were sufficiently notable or not, they were more notable than the others. These three episodes are the first two episodes of the first season and the second season episode "Math Lab". The only reason "Math Lab" is a little more notable than the other episodes is that it was pulled from airing on its originally scheduled airdate due to content issues; this does not provide sufficient notability to the article to justify a separate article on Wikipedia. As such, it should be deleted or redirected to the main list of episodes. Neelix (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 00:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable. Title is not notable, so no redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rebuild as a dab page. There are many alternate things this could refer to. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:34, 24 February 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 to get rid of this article, but in light of the "support" !votes, and in the interest of preserving the work if future reliable sources show up, and per the obvious reason of this being a plausible search term, Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ctrl+Alt+Del[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable subject with only primary sources. Little information exists to replace primary sources, excepting a meme spawned at the comic's expense. Dudewhiterussian (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Only trivial mentions found, although it did win a supposedly notable webcomic award and has been published in book form. Delete No non-trivial mentions. Yahtzee DOES NOT count, nor does the award which is fan-voted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Taelus (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. If it is to stay, it should be disambiguated with a name like "Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)", because is commonly used for Control-Alt-Delete. — Sebastian 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sebastian. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If redirected, protect to lessen the chance that someone creates another fanwank article of this ilk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only necessary if you assume bad faith, for which I see absolutely no reason here. — Sebastian 01:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted, redirect per sebastian. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The article has had several chances to sort itself out, with numerous editors attempting to fit anything other than weak 3rd party sources, and them being shot down. The comic itself is just not notable anymore, and if it ever was, remains to be seen, or validated - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that something cannot become less notable over time (according to Wikipedia's definition of "notable"), right?
  - Which is why I clarified what I was saying after that comment - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ugen64 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with impunity per everyone else. Suck it, Buckley. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. No good sources, no article. -Rmzy717 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per lack of third party sources. Outside of the criticism/meme, there seems to be a lack of good sources which has lasted a long time for this article. I don't think the criticism is enough to grant this topic notability by infamy however. --Taelus (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure I understand. Is the whole reception section filled with unreliable sources? I don't get it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I am uncertain about the quality of the "award" sources, as the webcomics name is spelt wrong on the first of them, and neither seem to really do much except list the fact it failed to win an award twice. The rest of the sources in the section are criticism or related to the 'meme' occurance, which don't strike me as establishing notability. I may be missing something with the two award citations however... But as this article has been sitting around for quite a long time with maintenance tags, and a few searches don't seem to yield much, I am dubious here. --Taelus (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, well I would move it to Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) and then redirect that to List of webcomics. It looks like it has gone through a lot of work, and all of that shouldn't be lost. Also, I think if someone really wanted to, they could find reception for this. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A quick comment about the WCCAs is that anyone with a webcomic can vote in them. I've voted in them, therefore I don't regard it as much of a reliable source. Your mileage etcetera etcetera. Nifboy (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on awards, but maybe move it to Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) and source it better. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No opinion on deletion per se, but I hope the closing admin will take into account that the article is a magnet for BLP abuse, and err on the side of deletion if it's close. Steve Smith (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the deletes read the article at all? Check out the "Other publishing" section. The comic strip is used in a Sid Meier's Civilization game, among elsewhere. He has been mentioned by a guy notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, who published something about him in Zero Punctuation, as well as by the two guys(both have articles also) from Penny Arcade, both on their site, and in interviews. Dream Focus 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that mention by or tangential connection to otherwise notable sources does not grant notability. We do not have articles for more well known in-house artists at various game studios when they create comics as part of ad campaigns. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not all primary sources, and is at least marginally notable. However, I'm not opposed to moving to a dab page, per the others above. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to have enough independent coverage, not all of it positive. Pcap ping 12:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (and move to disambiguated title). Even bad webcomics can be notable. The "reception" section is a strong core around which a neutral article can be written. Powers ^T 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepers: What sources are you talking about? There are almost no secondary sources at all, save for a non-notable award. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume they're referring to the 1UP web comics article, the Penny Arcade interview, and the multiple references to Ben Croshaw's views. Not all of it is significant coverage, but they are secondary sources. Not a lot, but I suspect there are quite a few more that aren't referenced in the article. I'll try to find some more if I have the time. Reach Out to the Truth 20:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think yahtzee counts as a reputable source in this case. It'd be like citing The Nostalgia Critic for that animated Titanic movie. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very well known webcomic, sources appear to back that up. Artw (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, Zero Punctuation counts as a source. Artw (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Personal blogs don't count as sources, sorry. Ctrl-Alt-Delete hasn't really accomplished anything worth noting, even considering it's a webcomic and webcomics are by definition not notable. There's little you can say about Ctrl-Alt-Delete: it exists, it pumps out mediocre content on a regular basis and it has a readership of a few thousand. I can point you to any number of webcomics that meet those criteria and yet have also have no presence on Wikipedia. Just existing and doing things is not criteria for being on Wikipedia, otherwise I would have a 50,000 word article on myself. Not to mention that the article itself is either consistently vandalised by those who hate the webcomic, or consistently whitewashed. So what we have is an article that is either pointless, abusive, or fancruft. Doesn't seem worth it to me. --FuegoFish (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "webcomics are by definition not notable"? Powers ^T 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They never do anything of note. They start and they update. There's no news in that. Nobody writes articles, print or otherwise, about how a webcomic has continued to update after two long years of updating. Releasing print books of content is not notable, anyone can do it. Winning "webcomic awards" is not notable, because they are just pointless trinkets handed out by popular vote - and popularity isn't notability. I suggest you look at the long history of webcomic articles on Wikipedia and their habit of being deleted if you want to learn more. Less than 0.01% of all webcomics have a Wikipedia article, and even then not all of them actually even meet the requirements necessary for notability. That's how Wikipedia works, for good or bad, no exceptions. --FuegoFish (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait, so are you saying that none of them are notable (as you imply in your first sentence and in your previous comment) or that most of them are not notable (as you imply by saying "not all of them actually even meet the requirements")? Powers ^T 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Typically, webcomics that manage to have articles are generally notable for reasons beyond them being a webcomic, like Penny Arcade's charity work and popular convention. The implication when I said "not all of them actually even meet the requirements" is that there are articles for webcomics here on Wikipedia that have been around for a long time without anybody actually noticing the subject isn't notable in any way. In any case, recently I have taken the opposite stance in a webcomic AfD discussion, arguing to keep a particular article. In that discussion, I was told (time and again) what was and was not grounds for an article, so it's been drilled into my head. That other webcomic has at least as many fans as this one, its article had at least as many independent sources as this one, and yet it was deleted for a lack of notability. I don't really see why this article should stick around when it also fails to meet the same criteria. I recommend taking a look at the notability guidelines for web content. --FuegoFish (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm quite familiar with the guidelines, and I assure you that there are several webcomics which meet them as webcomics, Penny Arcade among them. PA would have an article regardless of Child's Play and PAX (which have their own articles anyway). I believe CAD is among the group of webcomics that meet the guidelines, although I admit it's a borderline case. I don't know what this other webcomic was whose article was deleted, but I likely would have opposed deletion in that case as well. Powers ^T 13:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well nobody who voted and argued (at length) for that deletion seems to be interested in this particular one. Maybe it was less that it was a webcomic and more that it was a new article? Or maybe there's just cliques on Wikipedia when it comes to this sort of thing. I don't know. But I've learned a long time ago that when it comes to Wikipedia, you go with the flow, because there are people on here with more time and impatience than you - and they're the ones who make all the policies. --FuegoFish (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Primary sources abound. Kflester (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a general article on, or list of, webcomics; or weak delete if that helps meet a concensus. The only source coming close to satisfying notability guidelines (or verifiability, really), is the 1UP write-up. Other citations are either trivial, or not independent. Marasmusine (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a list isn't a good solution in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Control-Alt-Delete. At best, keep this article as Ctrl+Alt+Del (Webcomic) or something similar. I can't imagine a reality where this webcomic is more significant than the three-finger salute. Mockingbus (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage found [91], [92], and [93]. –MuZemike 17:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First one, what makes it notable? Other two, maybe. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe redirect I'm not really sure how notable this is, and then people keep mentioning the problems with sources. This would probably be better on a webcomics list as mentioned before. I Feel Tired (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In past AfD's I've believed this to be a non-notable webcomic. In the span of time since then, little has changed. This subject has not been reviewed or discussed by third parties (as far as the page suggests). I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here since we simply cannot include the work of just any freelance artist, be their work painting, scultpure, comic or otherwise. - DaoKaioshin (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, interesting. I agree that pages must meet verifiability (the ability to prove we know what we're talking about, vital to an open wiki) and notability (the ability to meet an arbitrary but popularly supported standard of worthiness, meant to keep the place maintainable (but which may be used to destroy unpleasant content rather than improve Wikipedia more often than not)). Other than those things, why can't we? --Kiz o r 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Will the closing admin please realize that the many "keep" !votes are claiming WP:ITSNOTABLE and saying "it just needs more sources" without WP:BURDENing themselves to hunt for said sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out here that in the past we have searched for sources, and following much discussion, have failed in finding any, apart from an unhealthy dose of primary sources. This article has seen much work done to it in an attempt to boost its validity, but there just aren't any particularly notable sources for it - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Will the closing admin please realize that 10#H's characterization is grossly flawed, at least in so far as it implies that all keep !votes follow the reasoning he specifies? My recommendation of keep, for example, is not based on that at all. Powers ^T 20:27, 2 March 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. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Dee[edit]

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

Contested prod. From the article: "Dee might be best known for placing third on the fifth season of Last Comic Standing." Pretty much epitomizes non-notability. The one secondary source cited in article is a glancing mention that he's a "heck of a nice guy" and will be performing; not significant secondary coverage. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. THF (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has regular national exposure in Canada, albeit on a cable-only channel. Gerry has more notability than Cabbie Richards, due to his previous stand-up comedy career. PK T(alk) 15:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep over 200 GNews hits, including numerous reliable sources. (GregJackP (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has won the 2008 Canadian Comedy Award in the Best Male Stand-Up comic category. Good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 25 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCard[edit]

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

I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "official website" is a dead link and I can't find any references. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to establish notability. May not even exist. –Grondemar 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage and even their own site is a parked domain now. Fails WP:V. Pcap ping 09:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a brief search and was unable to find any meaningful information about freecard.. 77.35.27.153 (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taijitu[edit]

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

This article is a POV fork meant to advance a fringe theory about the importance of Roman iconography to taoist symbolism. The pertinent information about the taijitu largely duplicates information on Yin and yang and Taiji and should be merged into Taiji; the remainder should be discarded Ludwigs2 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History: This page was originally created back in 2003, but was variously a stub or redirect until january of 2009 [94] when it was expanded specifically to move material about Roman shield designs off of the Yin and Yang page (since they clearly had nothing to do with Taoist philosophy). Since then this page has been little more than an ever-expanding coverage of the work of a single author named Monastra who drew speculative conclusions about the visual similarities of a few Roman shield markings and the Taoist symbol. The argument has no academic support - not even Monastra is willing to make an affirmative statement that there is a relationship - and is not an established idea in any academic discipline or in popular culture. --Ludwigs2 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and reassert as redirect: Non-notable topic, with no academic support. --Ludwigs2 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ludwigs already cast his !vote to delete as the nominator. Warrah (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and immediate closure of AfD: Nonsensical request. There is an article on the swastika symbol, as separate from Buddhist philosophy, so why not one on the yin and yang symbol as distinct from Taoist philosophy? The problem rather is that Ludwigs cannot accept the fact that the yin and yang is, as much as the swastika, an international symbol used by a variety of cultures, not just Chinese Taoism. Actually, Ludwigs is a cannon on the loose who has been now working for over year to exclude all non-Taoist material from the page. The stratagema behind his AfD is clear: He wants to reintegrate the symbol back into the philosophy article so that he can remove there the ancient European symbolism on the grounds of WP:Undue. That is a lame childish game.

The irony is that he himself was enthusiastic of and instrumental in forking off the article on the symbol from the article on the philosophical concept in the first place. Quote: "That actually sounds like a very good idea; I have no idea why it didn't occur to me before. If GPM approves, I'd go for that" --Ludwigs2 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC). That he wants now his own action to be undone shows how strong he works and misuses Wikipedia guidelines to push his own agenda. He reverts wholesale material even though the inclusion of the European yin yang have found support in a RFC.

In the course of our dispute - throughout which the said user failed to contribute even a single noteworthy addition - I discovered more and more scholarly ressources from specialized scholarship which explicitly refer to Celtic, Etruscan and Roman yin yang symbols. Right now, there are 17 scholarly references in four different languages about these ancient diagrams. I could (and will) add more. There are discussion of 1 to 3 pages length explicitly discussing the yin yang in non-Taoist contexts. Cf., for example, L'art Celtique de la Periode D'expansion, pp. 62-64.

The inescapable conclusion is that we are dealing in fact here with a quite sizable corpus of scholarship about the occurrence of yin yang symbols in ancient European cultures. This needs to remain included in the article if it is meant to present a world-wide view which has always been one of Wikipedia main objectives. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now 20 scholarly references to Roman, Celtic and Etruscans yin yangs. I am working now to include pictorial material of Celtic yin yang symbols but this may take some time since copyright issues have to be settled first. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do review GPM's sources carefully. You'll find that almost all refer to a visual similarity between patterns in a 15th century manuscript of Roman shield markings (just three markings from one page out of assumedly dozens of different shield patterns) and the Chinese taijitu. None of them claim that the shield markings are taijitu; none of them claim that the Romans called the shield markings taijitu; none of them claim any scholarly connection between the Roman shield markings and the Chinese symbol. Not even Monastra claims that - he simply offers it as an 'intriguing possibility'. Some of these sources are google searches, one is a footnote in a museum journal... I've only once seen a clearer example of wp:synthesis, and that one was no where near as outrageous as this one. --Ludwigs2 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been going around in circles for one year because of your persistent inability to understand one simple thing: the graphic sign which today goes by the name taijitu or yin and yang is a symbol variants of which have existed in numerous cultures. Just because its current name is of Chinese origin, does not mean that the Taoist symbol has some precedence to the point that all other sign uses have to be excluded. That, however, is your own thoroughly private POV position and has in fact led to all your fuss about the article. Scholars and people alike in fact refer to these non-Chinese signs as "yin and yang" exactly because of the close visual parallels. You have as yet failed to provide a single scholarly reference which rejects the identification of the Celtic and Roman symbols as yin yang.

Just compare the swastika article. The Indian name notwithstanding, the article discusses all sign uses in various epochs, cutltures and countries in chronological sequence. So should the taijutu article. I have given a more detailed rationale for some of the main sources here. Since then, a dozen or more have been added. They speak for themselves. This Afd should be closed immediately, being completely insubstantial. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To put it differently: the most recognized form of the taijitu or yin yang is a symbol which consists of a pair of inverted commata revolving in an enclose circle with or without two dots. Since the Roman and Celtic conform to this visual pattern, they are accordingly referred to by scholarship as "yin yang" or taijitu. And since the scope of Taijitu is the graphical symbol (not the philosophy which it represents!), it warrants the inclusion of the Roman and Celtic variants there. To point to the use of the yin yang pattern in different cultural traditions has nothing to do with synthesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gun Powder. It seems clear that the symbol exists and it is notable also in non-Taoist contexts. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Both Ludwigs2 and Gun Powder Ma make some good points. The article should be kept. It can be fixed. PYRRHON talk 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable and reliably sourced. Athenean (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just pro forma: have you looked at these sources? I mean, from my view there is not doubt that this is synthesis from a bunch of very weak, non-competent sources. If this article falls in the 'who the fuck cares' category, then I'm happy to abandon it (except that I will continue to remove the consistent attempts to GPM to refer to Roman shield markings as Tiajitu - that's a complete fabrication with no basis in historical research). but it does irk me a bit to see this kind of nonsense legitimized. --Ludwigs2 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You still do not understand. The Roman shield markings, just as the Celtic symbols, are referred to as yin yang because of their similar visual pattern, not any intrinsic relationship with the Taoist philosophy. The use of swastika as a symbol by religions and ideologies as diverse as Buddhism, Hinduism and Nazism is discussed within one and the same article, so why can't we discuss the use of the taijitu as a symbol by cultures as diverse as the Celts, Romans and Chinese within the same article? Your stance to retain the Chinese material at the exclusion of all other traditions is pure POV and actually quite a bit presumptuous. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you as a rule, except that (a) no one does that except for a small contingent of non-authoritative scholars, and (b) the way you use these minor sources consistently implies that the chinese taoist symbol comes from an early Roman symbol called a taijitu. Now, if you made it clear that:

the Romans (and celts) didn't call it a taijitu,
there is no scholarly, historical, anecdotal, or other connection between the Roman shield patterns and the later taoist symbol
The symbol is primarily and overwhelmingly known for its reference to the taoist symbol (and the Roman shield patterns are entirely incidental to that use)

Then we wouldn't have a problem. however, when I try to make those changes or argue these points to keep the article focused on the prominent use of the symbol, you revert it and reassert the roman usage as though it were primary. why do you do that? do you disagree with these three points?

I'll tell you frankly - I nominated this article for deletion explicitly to get feedback from uninvolved editors - RfC didn't work, personal requests didn't work, I couldn't get anyone else to look at the stupid page, and I am sick to death of arguing with you by myself, because you bitch and you moan and you scream but never respond to a damned thing I say. If you'd get out of your own fucking head and talk to me like a normal person we wouldn't have this problem. get it? --Ludwigs2 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion policy states "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Ludwigs2 has admitted that he is using this application-for-deletion to circumvent the outcome of a Request for Comment. In other words, he is using the deletion-process to overcome his setback in the dispute-resolution process. Using the deletion-process in this way is blatantly inappropriate and deserves censure. I suggest that Ludwigs2 make amends by apologizing to each of the learned and distinguished editors here for his tiresome misbehavior.

I have posted a comment at Talk:Taijitu about how the article might be fixed. PYRRHON talk 21:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gun Powder Ma—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-Philosophical importance of the iconography. Sadads (talk) 19:13, 2 March 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.