< 11 January 13 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Jones

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Khalil Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted via AfD in August and re-created today. The CSD G4 tag was removed by the creator against the obvious consensus from a few months earlier. Jones clearly fails WP:ATH as he's never played professionally as well as WP:GNG. His recent signing by the Packers is 100% a non-factor to his notability due to this Afd as well as this one which had the same kind of situation as this one. During the course of both the respective players were on a roster (inactive) yet had not played. Should've been speedied but if another AfD is necessary in this case, then so be it. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:42, 12 January 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. Redirect at will.  Sandstein  07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht Shares

[edit]
Yacht Shares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This sham article appears to have been originally set up to hawk timeshares from companies controlled by Matthew Condon and Joseph Galati (see [1] and [2]) using a WP:Single-purpose account, Special:Contributions/Prebbleq, that was also used to post what appears to be a resume (see Prebble Q. McLaughlin). The additions for other timeshare hawkers (see [3] and [4]) appear to be an attempt to "legitimize" Condon's and Galati's businesses by referencing more well-established competitors. Note that the article on Fractional ownership already contains a section on yachts that, while more concise, contains essentially the same information as presented here without reference to particular vendors. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trying to get this killed for a while. this page is a total sham, I've tried whittling it down before. But, if there is another article under whose umbrella this would fit, keep that one, kill this one. Vinithehat (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If moved to a generalized article name such as Yacht timeshare, a name that explains the general practice, rather than a shared name of a company. Web search has found a number of companies specializing in this and it appears to be a legitimate form of time sharing. Calmer Waters 09:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking into in further, agree that at this time there is not a need for a separate article and viable, non-promotional prose should be moved to Fractional ownership. Calmer Waters 10:01, 15 January 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. Somebody created stubs for all the red links. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 18:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O. cornutus

[edit]
O. cornutus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also:

O. lepidus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
F. crispa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These dab between red links. Some blue links were added, but appear non-specific. The whole idea of disambiguating between contracted prefixes seems rather dubious. Pcap ping 23:06, 12 January 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security Innovation

[edit]
Security Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another advert for a non-notable company. Paozik (talk) 23:01, 12 January 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. Despite concerns about the notability of the company, and the involevment in the creation of the article by people involved with the company, the article does have topic specific sources which write at length about the company. The company exists, and the article meets the requirements of WP:COMPANY. Concerns about the quality of the material in the article should now be addressed by editing and improving the article. SilkTork *YES! 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogtronix

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Blogtronix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company. Article has been deleted five times before, and this iteration is written by an employee of the company who is a single-purpose account. Given references are mostly incidental mentions, no mentions at all, or narrow trade rags. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am not a blogtronix employee 2. References are not incidental, and all references are relevant. 3. corporation is just as notable as other producers of collaboration software which are listed in encyclopedia, many of which have far fewer references than this article. (Jive Software, Socialtext, Thoughtfarmer) 4. other editors have acknowledged that my article is significantly different than previous versions, with which i was not affiliated. several editors have deemed the article acceptable, why should Haakon take exception? 5. I am not a single-purpose user, this is merely my first project. I plan to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia in whatever areas I see a need. Elimccargar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If you are not an employee, then by some strange coincidence there is a Twitter user that has the same username as you and posted about working there. If that is a coincidence, then I must apologise for the mistake. Haakon (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Haakon's sleuthing. WP is not a tool for marketing and promotion.Nefariousski (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am independent contractor/student intern, i do stuff for a couple companies, but if u consider that sufficient conflict of interest, so be it. but please do not delete the article. if you look at the article and only consider its language, references, and notability, i think you will see that it merits inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimccargar (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that in terms of software bloggers and "industry rags" are the most important measure of notability. This software powers several immense communities in several countries, and the sources reflect that. 74.211.199.50 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) — 74.211.199.50 (talk) 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 Speedy keep, bad faith AFD by sockpuppet of blocked User:Torkmann. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Polar Blues (Album)

[edit]
Bi-Polar Blues (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No google hits. Too trivial. Most likely a vanity piece. WordupBrah (talk) 20:36, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Mirzad

[edit]
Ali Mirzad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is little to hang an article on here; a claim that he has written a book (no evidence for this on the Web) and a claim that he is a minor politico (press secretary for the district of Behsud).

None of the sources given in the article support the information given however; in fact they do not mention Mirzad at all.   pablohablo. 20:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? How do you know?Jarhed (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comments from article's creator JamshidAwal

[edit]

Hi there , So sorry to bother you all. Since I was physically and psychologically exhausted with what now seem the worst idea that I ever had to creat this article (Ali Mirzad) I have decided to delete this article. The intial objective of this article was of informative basis. It is sad and unfortunate ..but I felt helpless and tired. You'll understand by reviewing my talk page.. all the editors are fighting amongst themselves and are becoming more and more violently anal. In a world full of violence the last thing I ever want is to be the reason behind on more conflict.

Unless you can help to setelle their dispute I respectfully urge you to allow me deleting my own article.

kind regards,

P.S. I should add that I found the incessant comments about my capability of the english language quite hurtful. as I am a an english literatur masters student. I don't believe that someone's ability should be judged by a few typos.. :-(

--JamshidAwal (talk) 05:51, 14 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Institute

[edit]
Galen Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence of notability given, IMO. For example, a letter to the editor written by the founder is used to substantiate coverage in the New York Times. Article was previously speedied as promotional, but the current version is significantly different from the deleted version. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan - if you look at the other source material, you'll see that in addition to letters to the editor, the Galen Institute has been featured in a number of top-tier publications, including multiple article submissions to and mentions in publicatiosn and outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, National Public Radio, FOX Business Network, National Journal, and National Review. The Galen Institute has also been featured in the New York Times in other instances in addition to the aforementioned letters to the editor; I can document those appropriately on the page if needed. Furthermore, the Galen Institute counts among its notable scholars, trustees and fellows former high ranking officials at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, former heads of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget, and several prominent think tank founders and scholars with background in free-market health reform. I can source additional information if necessary, but under these grounds, I ask that you reconsider deletion of this page. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, there is a second New York Times source under the page's reference section to an article describing Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner's role on the 2005 Presidential Medicare Commission. This is not a letter to the editor, but rather a substantive article that clearly discusses the Galen Institute. Additionally I have added a third New York Times source - an article written by Galen Institute President Grace-Marie Turner for the New York Times to the reference section, so as to clear up any and all question as to: a) the appropriateness of citing the New York Times as a publication in which the Galen Institute has appeared; and b) the noteworthiness of the Galen Institute. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting an organization's leader and mentioning the organization in that context isn't generally held to be substantial coverage. And about reconsidering deletion -- I don't make the call on that. The closing admin will review the discussion here and decide if there's consensus to keep the article based on arguments grounded in Wikipedia policies. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niteshift - to address your concerns, I've added articles that specifically focus on the Galen Institute as an organization, as well as articles on the Health Policy Consensus Group, to the reference section. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically, if you look at the notability criteria under WP:ORG is states: "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." It's not MY concern, it's the criteria. A bunch of quotes from members do absolutely nothing to establish notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the media coverage I list and sources I cite, while there are stories that use quotes from Galen personnel, there are also profiles of the Galen Institute, stories about the Galen Institute's funding, the organization's mission/goals, conferences held by the organization, and polling and studies conducted by the organization. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I've added a Washington Times editorial that uses polling data from the Galen Institute, and a lengthy profile of the Galen Institute from Human Events magazine. I've also added some articles that examine the Health Policy Consensus Group. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Human Events piece is a step in the right direction. The op-ed piece does nothing. They provided polling data. That's not coverage of the org. Again, the primary criteria is: "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.". "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". Using a poll the org did in an article not about the org isn't going to go far in satisfying that criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still contend, as I pointed out in my initial post regarding this subject, that the fact that the Galen Institute has been featured in multiple top-tier media sources (not only through quotes, but through profiles and other stories about the organization) provides sufficient validity and notoriety. These mentions are, in my opinion:
  • "significant coverage in secondary sources" (see the coverage of the Galen Institute by Fox Business Network, and note that while the president of the Galen Institute appears in those clips, she appears as a representative of the organization);
  • "reliable and independent of the subject" (ranging from prominent daily-run top-tier newspapers (The New York Times, Wall Street Journal), to prominent magazines (National Journal, Reason Magazine, Human Events) to television (Fox Business Network) to radio (National Public Radio));
  • not "trivial or incidental" (I'm not sure one could classify commentary from the Galen Institute in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times or appearances on Fox Business Network as "trivial" and "incidental").
As for the piece in the Washington Times, it is not an op-ed, but an editorial - it was written by the editorial board of the paper, not the board of the Galen Institute. The polling data in the piece was not used in an article about the organization, but about health care attitudes in the United States. In other words, while the Galen Institute wasn't the subject of the piece, it was deemed significant and notable enough by the editorial board of the Washington Times for inclusion of their data and their organization in the piece. Explain how this doesn't meet reliability, significance and notability standards. Andrewpsroyal (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice smoke and mirror effect. Listing thing seperately, yet not exactly in context. Listing places they appeared as "reliable and independent" doesn't mean that when they appeared there, it was significant or in depth. Then you list the "significant" coverage seperately. That should be one list because both reliable and significant need to be present, not one or the other. Also, when did I say the op-ed piece was written by the org? I said it is an op-ed piece. It is. It is the editorial opinion of the paper (ie op-ed). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're taking the objective terms "significant" and "relevant" and making them subjective based on your own personal views of what's significant and what's relevant. Who's to say that having poll data used in an editorial from the Washington Times editorial board isn't significant? Who's to determine whether a focused paragraph discussing the organization's views and positions in The New York Times or a submission from the organization via its leadership to the Wall Street Journal is less significant or relevant than a fluff piece on the organization? As far as I can tell, there are few pieces solely on the organization (as is the case for other organizations featured in Wikipedia that have not faced this level of scrutiny); there are, however, hundreds of instances where the organization has submitted pieces to top publications (I doubt an insignificant organization could get a piece in the Wall Street Journal), and has been featured in top media outlets (are 6-10 minute segments on Fox Business Network not considered "in depth", even though they feature the organization, its positions and key goals?).
With regard to the op-eds and letters to the editor - if there is an issue with op-eds and letters to the editor being grouped with other coverage, I recognize and respect that and can make changes to separate news and opinion.
And you did call the Washington Times piece an op-ed, when it is, in fact, an editorial - the former is submitted by a third-party to the paper, and the latter is written by the paper's editorial board. That's the difference between the Galen Institute submitting a press release and having it published, and the editorial board referencing the organization's polling information because of its notoriety. From the Wikipedia op-ed page:
"An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members.
Andrewpsroyal (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're drawing the conclusion that these media mentions (or as you call them, "placements") were obtained as part of a public relations campaign rather than because of the organization's notoriety - a view that is at the very least myopic and the very worst completely misinformed. Do you have evidence that these media mentions are "placements" submitted as part of a broader public relations effort? As far as I can tell, the coverage of the Galen Institute in the press is in direct relation to their positions on health care issues, not their effort to sell themselves as a brand - having worked in print journalism and at communications agencies, I can say with an absolute degree of certainty that the Wall Street Journal and New York Times don't accept "placements" for their op-eds, and they don't publish op-eds from organizations that do not meet sufficient notoriety criteria. And, as I previously mentioned, I've added articles and television appearances that focus specifically on the organization, its funding, and its principles - sources that are not, as you assert, "vague references to its ties or funding." Andrewpsroyal (talk) 21:09, 14 January 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 under WP:CSD#G7 Pedro :  Chat  09:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meijwes

[edit]
Meijwes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This family is not in any way encyclopedial, and the listed "sources" do not make clear why this family should be in Wikipedia. Mvdleeuw (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a redirect to a nominated page:

House of Meijwes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ok, can you delete both pages, the page Meijwes and House of Meijwes. The sources are fine, but if wou want delete this page, go ahead. --Jansma (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page, Meijwes and House of Meijwes, must be delete, as soon possible, so fast possible. Thank you. This page must be delete. Please. --Jansma (talk) 08:59, 14 January 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. Icewedge (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServerPronto

[edit]
ServerPronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no coverage of this server company outside press releases. Not notable. (contested prod, no reason given) Fences&Windows 18:57, 12 January 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 - biography of a living person with very marginable notability there the subject requested deletion Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent and strong demand for immediate deletion of Taraneh Javanbakht

[edit]

I am absolutely baffled by the appearance of this article that looks like a real vandalism to dis credit wikipedia. This individual is indeed notable for hyperbolic and patently false claims. Example I: Her works are in physics, chemistry, biology, nanotechnology, engineering, cognitive science, philosophy, literature, arts and human rights. Just this line should be enough to delete the article. The sources that are given are Shargh, an obscure newspaper in Farsi; an interview by a Farsi radio, by the name of Zamaneh, and the student and employee page of the website of the Polytechnic of Montreal, which contains the name of all students and employees. It is obvious that numerous small radio stations or low budget newspapers need tabloid kinds of stories like this. Example II:The critics on the works of Taraneh Javanbakht were published by Etemad Melli newspaper,[50][51] Forough magazine[52] Peyvand magazine,[53] Vazna magazine,[54] Roozan newspaper[55][56] and Mardomsalari newspaper.[57] Her biography and works in sciences, philosophy, literature, arts and human rights were published by the media such as Shargh newspaper,[58] Jamejam newspaper,[59] Kayhan newspaper,[60] Etemad newspaper,[61] Hamshahri newspaper,[62] Mehr News Agency,[63] Iranian Students News Agency,[64] Kayhan of London,[65] Gooyanews[66][67] and Radio Zamaneh.[68]. Again, not one of these newspapers are peer-reviewed scientific or philosophy journals. I have checked the papers in a number of scientific journals that Ms. Javanbakht has been part of a team of researchers, for example, Nanoscale surface characterization of biphasic calcium phosphate ... by R França, T Djavanbakht Samani, G Bayade, LH Yahia, E Sacher in Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, or Minimally modified phosphodiester antisense ... by I Brigui, T Djavanbakht Samani, B Jollès, S Pigaglio, and A Laigle in Biochemical pharmacology. None of these researches are of a very significant scientific worth, although they are of some value. I also looked at her articles in "Falsafeh -e now" or New Philosophy Journal a monthly publication by Allameh Tabataba'i University (ATU). After the astonishingly stupid article about her claims to bring metaphysical philosophy methods closer to scientific methods, in which she argues the principle of repetition as a criterion for a selection of the right metaphysical theory against an alternative. Obviously, she has tried to mechanically introduce scientific method into philosophy without understanding or reflection that principle of time series analysis cannot be applied to normative assertions. The paper does not have any references to any other papers except two paper by herself. There are no footnotes. The discussion sounds like a delusional nonsense. After reading the article I was curious to learn more about ATU, which can be found here,http://en.atu.ac.ir/?fkeyid=&siteid=2&pageid=167 and is self explanatory. I urgently demand the deletion of this article. Jasonhaley (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Javanbakht

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Taraneh Javanbakht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person fails WP:BIO and no reliable source in English has pointed her notability. The only online source is this, which is not at all enough for notability. There are tens of people in that list and none has an article in Wikipedia. Professional Assassin (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
Articles in other language has been created by the Article's subject, herself. :) The sources in this article also don't show any notability. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have been interviewed by several Iranian newspapers but it doesn't show notability of them. Plus all of her books have been published by her own investment which doesn't bring notability. It is obvious that this person is not a notable poet and all of the Wiki articles in several languages are self generated propaganda to generate notability via Wikipedia, not to reflect her notability in Wikipedia! Everyone can make articles with very poor grammar in several wikis using Google translator or similar tools for him/her-self as this case probably has done.--Professional Assassin (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The award was a minor award and doesn't bring notability. I know at least hundreds of people with such awards. Critics' review of her works are something more than negative and being reviewed by some critics is because of her extreme self promoting, propaganda-like behavior to show her notability. I can translate some critics' review in English if you like. If writing extreme nonsense as poem makes someone notable then we will have thousands of notable poets in Wikipedia.--Professional Assassin (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the most famous critic of Iran once wrote a critism to demonstrate the self-promotion and propaganda-like behavior of Javanbakht. One of his argues was that all of Javanbakht;s work are self-published and Javanbakht is not a notable poets. Of course with a little knowledge about the publishing industry in Iran, you know that Javanbakht's books are self published book--WIMYV? (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These still read as assertions to me. The "most famous critics"--who? Can you cite this work? And..."with a little knowledge about the publishing industry in Iran"...well, can you show this in a way that? This discussion has gotten so far out of hand that I think any remarks not backed up my specific citations should be completely ignored. Cazort (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name of critic is Mehdi Atefrad. in his article he wrote on quality of Javanbakht's work and her self-publish books: "if everybody has money like Mrs. Javanbakht to publish her books by her own expenses, any 5th grade school boy could publish a poetry book at the level of Taraneh Javanbakht's work". I have the critic's article. If you like I can email a copy of the article to you. Just email me (Do you read Persian?).--WIMYV? (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This user is an established user in fa.wiki)--WIMYV? (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My contributions in Fa_wikiGire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Cazort said, using google translator can solve the problem for the non english sources of the article. Her books have been published by famous publishers in Iran. As User:Dabbler said, the unacceptable statements that she is self-publishing or the awards she obtained are of low value are just unsupported claims. The sources of the article confirm her notability. Zohairani (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help if you could demonstrate, and not merely assert, that these are published by "famous publishers" in Iran. Right now, the article doesn't even have the name of a publisher. A name of a publisher and a website would help. Also, do you have anything that can provide establish the notability of the awards presented? Otherwise we are just talking past each other. In the absence of additional information, I would be inclined to keep this page (on the basis of the past AfD and the AfD on the persian wikipedia) but I am changing my recommendation to no consensus until we can back up these comments with more facts or information, and I could be swayed either way. An AfD discussion is not a vote. I would also request all participants to address the points made rather than just stating an opinion and making additional unfounded assertions. Cazort (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins in fa.wiki deleted the article many times. This article deleted 3 times by AFD. The problem is that the article was re-created. This is widely believed in fa.wiki that they are sock-puppet and meatpuppet of Taraneh Javanbakht (You can ask admins in fa.wiki)WIMYV? (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not seeing the evidence, looking at the edit history in fa.wiki, that this article was deleted three times. I only see a single AfD, and the outcome of it, although contentious, seems to point towards a consensus to improve, rather than delete the article. Please show the history of deletion or these prior AfD's that you mention. Cazort (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser was requested here by a Wikipedian and it can be repeated as many times as any other user resquests. The problem is not checkuser, but is that Behzad Bodarres, Gire 3pich2005 and Professional Assassin have have never been punished for having insulted me in fawiki. Javanbakht (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article in fawiki is against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and includes some insults added by Users Behzad Modarres and Gire 3pich2005. It is really ridiculous that Behzad Modares and other insulters still insult me in their recent edits here in the article on my name in fawiki, and come back in the english Wikipedia to define personal attack! Despite the previous consensus on my notability, the insulters should convince the Wikipedians to delete the article in fawiki. I will be agree to keep the article in Wikipedia only if the insults added recently by Users Behzad Modarres and Gire 3pich2005 to the article in fawiki are deleted. According to the well-known sources of the article :

which all have been cited in the article, the miserable are the persons who can not convince the Wikipedians in fawiki on my non-notability! Javanbakht (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Strong Delete not notable. Neither as a scientist nor an artist or author. All the publications are self-published. Adler (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Self published sources and autobiographies in unreliable sources do not make a person notable. warrior4321 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand to delete the article in Wikipedia

[edit]

I demand to delete the article forever, because of being insulted so many times in fawiki and accused with false claims. Checkuser has been done before on my account, and I don't mind the false informations on me that have been claimed by Two of fawiki users, Gire 3pich2005 and User:WIMYV (User:Behzad Modarres) to make other users change their votes on the article.


I have all the human rights to defend myself against insults which can not be supported by anybody else, unless the persons who like bothering others. User:WIMYV (User:Behzad Modarres) and User Gire 3pich2005 have insulted me in fawiki many times. Gire 3pich2005 insulted me here and because I defended myself, User:Behzad Modarres blocked my user account in fawiki. The Two users Behzaad, who deleted User Gire 3pich2005's insults here, and Sicaspi protested, but one of them was blocked and the protests of the second one here in my talk page were never answered by Behzad Modarres.

Then User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 edited the article in fawiki and added some insults to it. In order to help you understand better the situation, I translate some of their edits in fawiki:

Somebody published an insulting text in his personal weblog (Ding Dang), which has been used by User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 in the article in fawiki. This person in his blog has insulted me with this statement: "Taraneh Javanbakht deliriums and makes wry mouth to her readers." User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 have not only linked to these insults in the article, but have also added some other statements to the article, never even told by the insulting person. They have edited in the fawiki article that I have opposite personalities and the critics this person published in his weblog are to search my opposite mental state in my poems! Mehdi Atefrad is the only person who insulted me and instead of writing on my poems, he wrote on my personality! All the other critics on my works are about my works, not myself. User:Behzad Modarres and User:Gire 3pich2005 insist to add Atefrad's insulting statements in the article. All these insults that these two users have edited in the fawiki article are against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Javanbakht (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1- Subjects of articles can not DEMAND any change to be made in their articles, including deleting them. If the evidences show that this article's subject is not notable then it will be deleted by an administrator. So please do not try to appear innocent.
2- With this poor grammar in English language which is claimed by you that it is your second language, how could you be able to write poems in seven languages?!! Quite frankly, do you really consider yourself a poet i.e. in German language?
3- I really admire your enormous amount of self-confidence. :)) --Professional Assassin (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demand to apply justice for all of the Wikipedians

[edit]
"With this poor grammar in English language which is claimed by you, how could you be able to write poems in seven languages?!!", this is what User:Professional Assassin has written to me. Justice should be for all the Wikipedians.Behzad Modarres blocked my account in fawiki. According to his claim here, the reason of blocking my account was that I told User:Gire 3pich2005 could not understand my editions in science or philosophy in Wikipedia. This statement did not merit any punishment because somebody who has neither worked nor edited in science or philosophy can not understand articles in these domains. When Modarres has blocked my account in fawiki for such a poor argument, why User:Professional Assassin, whose meatpuppets have been blocked by User:Mardetanha in fawiki, can still insult me? Javanbakht (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Fa.wiki has nothing to do with here. If you have problem with P.S. edits, go and inform admins in ANI. BTW, admins blocked you in fa.wiki because of meatpupetry and because you continuously violate WP:Civil. --WIMYV? (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are not true. Meatpupetry, which has not been proven, is not the reason of blocking my account. Users Behzaad and Sicapsy protested in fawiki, but you did not prove your claim and even blocked somebody else in fawiki whose IP is not related to me. You are responsable for all the insuting statements that you have added to the article in fawiki. Javanbakht (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you want or don't want is not important here. You can not demand anything. Show evidence that the article's subject is notable and the article will remain in Wikipedia, otherwise it will be deleted.--Professional Assassin (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy It?

This sentence has been your colloquialism when you talk about me. how many Link do you want?
BUT! I am not here for dispute. I come here to edit my opinions about this article. this is my argument to delete this article:
Self-published books, no reliable source in English, article that main contributors are closely related to Taraneh Javanbakht (WP:COI). Big self-claims do not make somebody notable. Do you believe it? On your website YOU called YOURSELF philosopher, Scientist in Physics Chemistry, biochemistry, also poet, writer, Script writer, painter, composer,...! You claimed that you say poems in 7 language! Some small media have been fooled once and interviewed her to see who this exceptional person is. But, all the times they never come back again! Because they realize that all those claims are empty claims. Now, it is time for Wikipedia to wake up! Self-claims do not bring notability!Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are still sleeping, because you have not understood that my notability does depend neither on Wikipedia nor on your false claims. You, who can not even read your mother tongue honestly, are not a reliable person to talk on my books!! Media have not covered critics, news, interviews on my works?!!! Neither on my poems in 7 languages?!!! You are sleeping, because you can not even read or hear your mother tongue in these links:

Where have you learned Farsi? In China?!! With this Chinese language that you (Gire 3pich2005), Behzad Modarres, Professional Assassin and Atefrad: the researcher of my personality, as he has claimed in his weblog, have learned in Iran! it is obvious that you can not see my editions in 7 languages! The above links are not medias, but cookies!!! Delete all the articles in Wikipedia about me and be happy, but never forget that whatever exists, exists even if you lose your honesty to deny it!!! Javanbakht (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil. You have violated WP:NPA multiple times. Please also see WP:COI. warrior4321 03:10, 15 January 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) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Hogg Outlawz

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Boss Hogg Outlawz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Previous nominations have resulted in delete and then later no consensus. I am still unable to find substantial coverage of this subject from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N Can't find anything that remotely qualifies as notable / encyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefariousski (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clodagh Cooney

[edit]
Clodagh Cooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Contested prod. External links do not appear to be directly relevant to the player in the article and the reference is to the club website. noq (talk) 18:08, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Sevian

[edit]
Samuel Sevian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability outside national level. SunCreator (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Troff notability isn't from his FIDE rating. In fact we've deleted IM's that have otherwise no notability. So this FIDE rating assertion is wearing a little thin. I would ask you to exmplain in what way WP:ATH is fulfilled by anything about Samuel Sevian. SunCreator (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what notability is there outside the national level? SunCreator (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like i sayed his the top rank player in world for his age group ( everyone under 10 ). And if you tell me that not inuff then you would have 2 other article to delete. Nicholas Nip, Kayden Troff. These guys have won game outside of the USFC ( like Sevian ) but haven't been publish or won high title other then in the USA. Ther are also many Rock Band that are restricted to Canada or the USA or even a states or a province. You would half to delete all of them.
Ther millions and millions of article about people who have achieved notability in a small states or a small province. If you delete this article because of that reason then your gonna half to follow true whit the million and million of article about local stars. GSP-Rush (talk)
Notability at a national level is still notability. Just because all reliable sources come from the same country doesn't mean they should be tossed aside as meaningless. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. For people that is WP:BIO and for a chess players being a sport that's WP:ATH. Chess players normally qualify by being a GM or in some way competed at the highest amateur level of a sport; for example a top tournament or an Olypiad. Juniors would normally be notable from World Youth Chess Championship, European Junior Chess Championship or simliar, although notice most of the winners don't have a wiki article. There is no notability from a FIDE rating as it does not help WP:ATH. Another way to establish notability from WP:BIO is to have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is claim in this article of 'featured in an article of Los Angeles Times' although no such article seems to exist; as least not online. SunCreator (talk) 20:51, 17 January 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.  Sandstein  07:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Jackson (businessman)

[edit]
Hugh Jackson (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence that he meets WP:BIO guidelines. This was prodded with a prod2, but this was removed and instead a merger was suggested with Andrew Jackson, Sr.. However, this article is also up for deletion, and shows no evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 12 January 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. Given the amount of discusion and Keep votes I thought this would be a difficult decision - however, there is no evidence at all for notability, no references, and no assertion of notability in the article. SilkTork *YES! 11:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etchings in the Dead Wax

[edit]
Etchings in the Dead Wax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable self-published book. This was prodded, with the tag removed by the creator. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that this book passes any of the relevant notability criteria. (The author notes that it sold 1000 copies in the first 8 months, which while nice for him/her, doesn't really prove notability). Bfigura (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not really. WP:BEFORE makes no claim that articles can't be deleted after creation, only that they should be fixed if they can, as deletion isn't cleanup. However, as I've asserted in a few places above, this isn't a fixable issue. This book simply isn't notable - it doesn't meet the notability standard for books, or the general notability guideline. The links provided so far show that the book exists, that the author has done a signing, and an in-store reading. All of those things are considered to be trivial coverage in terms of notability. What is required, and hasn't been shown is that multiple, non-trivial reliable sources discuss the subject in some detail. This simply doesn't appear to be the case. -- Bfigura (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion, it does. In yours it does not. No problem with that! :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:N, it doesn't. What sources in that search do you think shows notability? Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the links in that search show the book has received considerable attention. I think it meets the requirements of WP:N, however from the article in Wikipedia and the description of the book, I think the book must be full of boring nonsense which doesn't worth wasting time, reading it. lol --Professional Assassin (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with last user talk. When an item or person of interest generates many pages in any search engine, despite their content in whole or in part, displays considerable notability. --Asb2009 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some misunderstanding of what "considerable attention" or "non-trivial mention" means. The amazon link above is just a user-generated link, not an amazon sales ranking, so it doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. And the google search just turns up a number of SEO-type sites that briefly mention the book. -- Bfigura (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear that the user who tagged this article as an AfD is calling the shots. It is also very clear that a decision to delete the article was made from the very beginning despite the pretence of "open discussion". Many wikians have weighed in to keep the article, but they have done so in obvious futility. There is no open discussion option only the pretense of open discussion. The argument presented by the party(s) to delete is that the novel is not notable despite a multitude of various sources of evidence that the book is quite prevalent worldwide. The user also keeps quoting that the article doesn't qualify WP:RS, it does in fact qualify just not that user's points of interest. So the book doesn't have a movie made of it, and it didn't win the Pulitzer, it is still an obvious point of public interest and quite reputable with irrefutable internet and print presence which is obvious from the buzz above. The decision to delete seems a sad case of "I aint never heard of it before and I don't like what I see." Smells like selective censorship to me. --Asb2009 (talk) 09.05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Unaware Ghost

[edit]
The Unaware Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed deletion contested. Article is Original Research consisting of primarily unverifiable claims. blue520 17:00, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-fashion

[edit]
Anti-fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. We've been promoting this "article" laced with original research since 2008, I think that's long enough now. JBsupreme (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There has been much assertion in the discussion that Jayen Varma is notable, however, we rely on verifiable sources to prove such notability, and no sources have been provided. The recordholdersrepublic website is a doubtful source as it accepts submissions from anyone. Even if the site were reliable, the listing on that site alone would not be enough to meet the requirements of WP:BIO SilkTork *YES! 11:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen Varma

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jayen Varma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. The only aspect in the page claiming notability is a Record Holders Republic record. Assuming that the record itself is not notable as I can't find references for it. Unable to find any other sources that assert notability of the individual either. Raziman T V (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Oh, didn't know that the article has been deleted once. Concerns then seem to be same as mine now. Can this be speedied as G4? -- Raziman T V (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link: http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=484 . In the article it is said that “..according to …… he is the fastest…” So the article can be retained. --Musicindia1 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my nomination I am also questioning the notability of Record holders Republic itself. I had a glance at their form to be filled in to "get" a record and it doesn't look like a big deal. -- Raziman T V (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I made a study about bass guitarists. Bass Players are not much noticed by masses, especially in India. That could be the reason why notability is less in this case also. Though Jayen Varma is known for his speed, his unique slap bass playing is more notable in the international big bass guitar community (especially among great bass players in the west and in Japan). The technique developed by him is emerging as a new genre funk now a days which is called “Indian Slap Bass”. This is being subjected to study. I also saw his profile where bassist like Bootsy Collins, Jeff Berlin, Marcus miller, Michael Henderson(of Stevie Wonder and Miles Davis), James LoMenzo (of Megadeth), David Pastorius etc have commented on his bass playing skills. In the meanwhile, I am surprised to see that there are hardly few Indian guitarists in WP, though there are many great players. Please consider this article to be retained. Thanks --Musicindia1 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard to get the comments of each and everyone who appreciated him. Its available in http://www.myspace.com/jayenvarma profile, where all these bassists are in his friends list. I managed to get the comment of the legendary bassist Bootsy Collins. Pl see it here in this page http://comment.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewComments&friendID=299471028&page=42&state=5031!50!45!837830!834595

Also, if ‘fastest bassist’ is searched in FIND A RECORD in Guinness World Records official site http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com his name is displayed from his Guinness member profile. But I say that his innovative slap bass style is more important than speed. Please approve the article. Thanks --Musicindia1 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Uploaded By: jayenvarma

10 months ago

Level: Bronze

Points: 515

Description:

Jayen Varma from India holds the World Record in Bass Guitar as Fastest".

(This was copied and pasted from this page, which says © Copyright Guinness World Records 2009 at the foot. Pasted here as a fair use quotation.) Self-published and not Guinness verified. The Guinness 'Find a Record' takes you to a Google search, where this 'community' article was at the top. I can't see this as being any different than just Google searching. If you want your article to survive, you need reliable independent references, not blogs, forums, or indeed any self-published stuff. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where those boxes have come from - they weren't there and I certainly haven't added them. I also don't know what the 515 points mean. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone thinks I'm barmy, the boxes have gone again. Don't care who took them, thanks... Peridon (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The boxes are from spaces before the text. So the Guiness record is made up. All about vanity. I sustain my Delete vote. Hekerui (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am only the creator of the page ജയന്‍ വര്‍മ in Malayalam language. I wanted to do some more translations about some great Western and Indian musicians to Malayalam language. But my initial experience was bitter when a user immediately tagged my article along with the original English article for deletion. I do not question the sincere intention of the user who proposed it for deletion. The fact is that I only translated a clean English article Jayen Varma to Malayalam. The same article is also there in Italian language. It seems that the English article was restored after deletion and a long similar discussion. In this context, I was forced to enquire more details of it. The record of Jayen varma is by ‘Registry of official World Records(Record Holders Republic)RHR(USA&UK). This is an official organization for human record holders and record attempters, by record holders (from Guinness, Alternate book of Records etc. Also in my search in WP, I could see many other articles quoting references of Record Holders Republic with the records of certain individuals. The description in the article which was restored on an earlier occasion after similar discussion is very neutral and true with the available reference. “…..According to the Registry of Official World Records (Record Holders Republic) USA and UK, he is the fastest percussive bassist, slap bass playing 36 percussive notes per second…”. Jayen Varma is of course notable in the music world for his innovative bass playing technique. The big land of India has 100s and 1000s of amazing guitar players. But around 10 are only listed in WP and the only bass guitarist's name Jayen Varma is also to be deleted now. Is this discrimination!! I hope you will look in to it again take any decision. I wanted to translate more, but just one is more than enough for me (since my time is now lost to establish even the original article). All the best to you all --Musicindia1 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Record Holders Republic is NOT official. It's a privately run site. Anyone could start up a similar thing. Guinness isn't official in the legal sense, but is so well established that they can be regarded as such - but not the 'community' section where the records are not Guinness verified. Guinness verification is normally rather strict. If you know of other articles that you have doubts about, please feel free to tag them. But their existence has no bearing on this one. We do not want to put you off contributing to Wikipedia - we do want to make sure that the information in articles is accurate, and also notable enough for an encyclopaedia. And that requires evidence in the form of references, but not self-published ones. I could easily claim a record for, say, balancing wine bottles. I could create a website, and submit my 'record' with several friends witnessing it (after helping to empty the bottles). Guinness wouldn't accept it in their main section. The community bit probably would, and who knows about the Republic. I hope you can see where we are coming from. We can see your disappointment, but we have rules and guidelines. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot You are having so much guessing. LIKE:- “..Guinness verification is normally rather strict..” “..I could easily claim a record for, say, balancing wine bottles….” ”…I could create a website, and submit my 'record' with several friends witnessing it…” ”…Guinness wouldn't accept it in their main section. who knows about the Republic…”. I respect you all since you are all more experienced in Wikipedia. I know that Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. You asked me to tag the other articles. But, I do not want to do it, since I don’t think ..’how to delete an article’- but I think, 'how not to delete an article by modifying it with available evidences.'. I believe that this was the strategy the users/administrators adapted in making the article to the present neutral position after a similar discussion in 2008. The man in the article is very much notable in the international world. The user who translated it in to Italian language may be knowing more, coz he seems to deal with musicians (Bass Players) articles. I do not want to go deep in to it anymore. And let the administrators decide the future of the article in question. Thanks a lot my friends.--Musicindia1 (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make us feel guilty doesn't work. A lot of us would much rather salvage an article than delete it. Remember it is up to YOU to produce the evidence - evidence that fits our criteria. We have looked for it ourselves, and not found it. If you have it, put it on the table for us to see. If you can't, or won't, there's nothing we can do for you. Peridon (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offending you my friend. Before translating the article to the language Malayalam, I also had checked the reference. And I was convinced about the neutrality of it as well. He is one of the greatest bass players of Indian origin and notable in the International world of music. In the following articles Record Holders Republic has been cited as a main source as well as additional reference. Doug Pruden Yard (beer) David Straitjacket Mohammad Faisal Lucky’s Lake Swim Paddy Doyle Liquid Blue. This is the reference in the article in question also. The article has been existing here for more than a year. So please feel free to edit it if you can so that the article won’t die.Thanks a lot.--Musicindia1 (talk) 14:21, 17 January 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer

[edit]
Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, unclear notabiltity and appears to be promotional. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. He is a distinguished professor with a personal chair (PROF5) just because his institute has less of these should not exclude it. The Web of Knowledge backs up google scholar but showing citations his articles have recieved in academic journals 105,89,88,76,63,51,37,37,36... (he is first or second author on most of these). So because we can make a good case for passing not one but two of the counts of PROF I think it is a fairly safe keep. Polargeo (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On web of science (also counting one paper under JW not JDW) gives an h-factor of 16. However, I feel uncomfortable with h-factor as a rating (especially as mine is only 4) and I think it is better to just look at the spread of citation numbers and journals. Polargeo (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually agreeing with Polar we should keep it. When I nominated it it was a jumble and hardly in context. It has been significant;y pared down and a policy pointed out. in good faith I withdraw this nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:21, 12 January 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) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearce Kelleher

[edit]
Pearce Kelleher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax. "Hymen Missari, Young Wealth" is a book/reference used for much of it, but it doesn't appear to exist or to be googleable. The rest confirms that Mr. Kelleher exists, not that he has this fantastic company. Google News hasn't heard of him. Kelleher Capital doesn't seem to exist online. And there's certainly nothing to back up "man of letters, and international playboy."

Turning to unreliable sources, Mr. Kelleher seems to have a motorcycle (or at least a picture on a motorcycle), and both Facebook and Linkedin indicate he is at a small shop named "EJB Capital". In other words, it doesn't counter the FUTON bias to indicate Mr. Kelleher is anything more than an average b-school graduate, certainly nothing to pass WP:BIO. tedder (talk) 16:02, 12 January 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) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Ratner

[edit]
Will Ratner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this person ever played professional baseball on any level. Page is apparent self promotion. Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:36, 12 January 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mazes and Minotaurs

[edit]
Mazes and Minotaurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely nothing establishing notability of this topic. It's a free online indie role-playing game with only minor mentions on the web. Certainly nothing like mainstream or expert coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in your head, but they're not encyclopedic, which is the important part for being listed here. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as this game is also published as an e-book, we have in WP:NOTABILITY (books) Rpg.net is an important source in the context of an article about RPGs. You might notice from its own article that it is itself considered notable enough for Wikipedia, besides And besides several articles in rpg.net, a quick google search unveils other articles on similar rpg sites. It is scheduled for OwlCon XXIX (referenced here) and Origins GameFair (referenced here). I think it is important to rate Notability in context, which is clearly at issue here. The context here is Indie RPGs, and in that realm sources like RPG.net are particularly important. The fact that M&M is referenced by sites and associations which are considered notable for Wikipedia standards is notable. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the bold "Save" from the beginning of this comment so that it doesn't look like you are trying to vote twice. DreamGuy (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would not have mattered anyway since Afd discussions are not votes. Outcome is based on the merit of the arguments provided. Putting Save or Delete in the comment would, I think, help a reviewer find arguments for each side more easily and is their main purpose. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few people talking about something on the Internet means nothing when trying to show something should have an encyclopedia article. By your standards every fart joke in the world should have its own listing. That's not how things work. DreamGuy (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Futurismic article is here. I don't think articles on established websites for a subject are the same as "a few people talking on the internet." And anyway, your criteria do not match WP:WEB, which would be the relevant policy here. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several more reviews have been brought to my attention, so I am linking them for consideration at least on impact of the game in its field, if they cannot be considered sources. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 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, with recreation encouraged when notability has become a bit better established. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Seguin

[edit]
Tyler Seguin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails WP:ATHLETE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's ice hockey player notability essay. Players at this level are routinely deleted. No predjudice against recreating when/if he gains more notability. DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. There is clear consensus, after good-faith research by two editors, that the organisation does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Militia Corps

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Indiana Militia Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable organization. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that discuss (not simply mention) the organization. Article was nominated for deletion in 2005 here [33]. Angryapathy (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I don't see any any reliable sourcing that says these two groups are the same group using two different names. It is reasonable to guess that they are different groups with different names. If it could be sourced that they are the same, I would favor an article move, and the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia does appear to meet notability standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reserve judgement on this. The only strange thing is that the "Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia" website now directs to "Indiana Militia Corps" so they are likely the same or one arose from the other but as you say if we cannot find any reliable sources for this then we cannot assume it here. Polargeo (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay some searching shows that although it is a very closely linked it does not appear to be the same thing. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote as I am unable to find independent verification of their notability. Polargeo (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One clue that these are two different organization is that when you check the html Meta description of the ICVM organization's redirect page[34] it states that they are in no way affiliated. Code snippet cut and pasted below:
<meta name="description" content="The Indiana Militia Corps is a constitutional, 
patriotic organization dedicated to preserving and defending the constitutions 
of the USA and Indiana, and our way of life.  Pro-God, Pro-family, anti-UN, 
anti-racist, pro-liberty. This organization is in no way affiliated with the 
Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia!">
It is pretty reasonable to guess that these two organizations are different and the ownership of the old ICVM webpage belongs to IMC now, after a schism. That said, guesses have no place in Wikipedia, and there remains a near total lack of reliable sourcing about the IMC group, and we should delete. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated some content showing there is current notability to the Indiana Militia Corps, and I hereby invoke WP:IAR against calls for deletion. The very fact that citizen militias are in the news makes it currently notable, even if nearly all third-party sources refer to militias in the aggregate and not by name. I am finding third-party sources that mention the IMC by name and this should satisfy the concerns presented; but I must also point out that within militia social circles the Indiana Militia Corps is every bit as notable as the Michigan Militia. If the paucity of objective third-party material regarding militias creates the appearance of a lack of notability, we should act in good faith and find the NPOV sources; the restrictive ruleset some here want to apply to the sources for establishing notability won't work with militia groups because advocates for these groups don't publish books the way the anti-militia people do!! The sources you cite are all POV and we can't go that way. The arguments regarding notability are restrictive and exclusionist, and the comments made in that regard evince a bias against this organization. If the Indiana Militia Corps page alone is deleted, then WP may as well delete the Michigan Militia article as well, but I do not see anyone trying to do this.

Also, the Indiana Militia Corps has become truly notable within militia social circles, but only AFTER the ADL, SPLC and Homeland Security gave them free publicity (My inside sources explain that membership is BOOMING since early 2009). With new members joining, their operations are sure to increase, and consequently they WILL be in the news... it is just a matter of time, and I bet we won't have to wait long. Deletion anytime soon would be premature, to say the least.

Also, the extreme controversy over the beneficial/malicious nature of militia groups almost guarantees that there will be those with POV intentions seeking to either delete or alter this article in a POV manner. But the niggling citation of a rule without a good supporting explanation is NOT good enough for me. Wikipedia exists to create and deliver content to web users, and deleting articles on controversial subjects is a form of censorship that I will not tolerate and will most assuredly appeal to the highest arbiters.

Presently it seems to me the rules are being used as an excuse just to delete content, that while neutral, is still apparently objectionable to some. This is itself a violation of policy. How can I say this? Anyone who takes a few hours to study the subject of modern citizen militias will see that 99% of what is being published out there is highly POV against militias, and based on my own research (which I will not discuss here) it is becoming clear to me that the people who are publishing against militias have an agenda; people I interview who are not in a militia but are interested in them also see an agenda at work. I am a political science major (concentration in law enforcement) and I can tell you that politically, where there is smoke there is fire. I have monitored the talk pages on everything relating to citizen militias and seen some pretty uncivil talk go on there, and those with anti-militia views, not acting in good faith, ultimately lost out in their edit wars. If the anti-militia people can't have homogeneity in everything relating to the subject of militias, they want to censor it (read: delete). Playing into their hands in that regard is tantamount to going POV all over this. It is far better to keep the article, keep it neutral, and include new content as frequently and as soon as possible... which I am prepared to do myself as I am paid to study the subject (but I pledge to still uphold WP:NOR).

In the interest of neutrality, fairness, and acting in good faith we must take all of this into account. WP:IAR is a PILLAR, notability is merely a guideline!! PLEASE let's not niggle this and let's NOT be deletionist! Thank you for your time and patience. I am confident that we can continue to improve the article. Barring that, I believe that the articles on these specific militia organizations ought to be merged into the page for the constitutional militia movement. JP419 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place to publish your own research about militia groups. The Wikimedia has a sister project for the purpose of publishing original research, Wikiversity, which seems to be a more suitable place for your work. That said, I would favor the suggest that this article be moved there instead of deletion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salty, didn't I just get done telling you that I am not putting my own research into this?!? I KNOW that original research isn't allowed!! Sometimes I think you're not listening to me at all. I'll say it again for effect: I'm not adding my own work, I'm researching the subject for third-party content. Got it? Now, would we PLEASE stop niggling and misdirecting? Thank you!!! JP419 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. In your 13 January explanation just above you wrote "based on my own research". Whether or not you discuss your own research, it is apparent that you are bringing your conclusions into this article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That said, the question is not original research, the question is the notability standard. The fact remains that there is very little found in independent reliable sourcing discussing this group. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm to JP419 one of the main reasons for this notability standard is to ensure we can cover the subject in a balanced encyclopedic way. This is not some deletionist attempt at censorship. Wikipedia is not here to repeat what an organisation says about itself on its own websites and blogs along with a few basic qualifications. Polargeo (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage in any independent reliable sources. I really have made an effort to find some after originally voting keep. So I take it this means a delete vote. Polargeo (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, unless somebody finds some. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also have looked very hard and have been able to find only four small mentions in independent sources. I have found zero significant coverage of the group. A single sentence in a 2004 publication by the Anti-Defamation League[35], and a simple mention of the name of the group in a list of militia groups in a publication by the Southern Poverty Law Center[36]. The simple name of the group is also mentioned in a 2008 election manual[37] as a militia group. Recently, JP419 found another mention of the group, which includes a single sentence quote from their website in a background paper[38] by a professor at Stanford University, but that paper appears unpublished and not peer reviewed. The standard[39] here is not simply any coverage, but rather the standard we must look for is significant coverage. There is nothing near to significant coverage here. If we are to follow this policy, we should delete. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:43, 17 January 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) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talib ibn Abi Talib

[edit]
Talib ibn Abi Talib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very non-notable person from Islamic history. Happens to be Muhammad's cousin but that is it. Even the article does not make any other claim of notability or significance. And when I try to do a google search about this person all I can get are Wikipedia mirroring sites. Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 14:12, 12 January 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) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlankApplication (software)

[edit]
BlankApplication (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software product. Was unable to find any significant coverage. Haakon (talk) 14:00, 12 January 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) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeniy Tsonev

[edit]
Evgeniy Tsonev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Bulgarian footballer. Does not appear to have played professionally as the senior clubs listed do not appear to be in the Bulgarian professional set up or the top level amateur set up. Only claim to notability is Champion of Bulgaria with a youth team. Seems like a promising youngster that failed to make the step up to professional. noq (talk) 13:32, 12 January 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 per WP:NOTAGAIN previous AfD was just closed, if disagree with previous result bring to WP:DRV. This is a non-admin closure. J04n(talk page) 13:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of timelines in fiction

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of timelines in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting for further discussion.

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: The timelines in the articles listed in this article are user-created. They are similar to "list of fictional characters in..." articles. This is as absurd as have a "list of list of fictional characters".

WP:SELF: This is article is merely a list of other articles. Hence, delete and create a category of those articles instead.

Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:29, 11 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Birnbaum

[edit]
Mark Birnbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page. Subject is non-notable by wikipedia standards. Sources to not meet WP guidelines despite request. THD3 (talk) 17:53, 9 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Agency (franchise)

[edit]
The Agency (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the deleted PROD: Non-notable youtube series that would seem to fail the general notability guideline. Eeekster (talk) 02:14, 10 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Hogan

[edit]
Thomas Edward Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP. Non notable individual. Nothing from Google, GNews or archives. HJMitchell You rang? 20:04, 10 January 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. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trout Lake, Alberta

[edit]
Trout Lake, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This short article was added with the assumption that it is a hamlet in Alberta. After a recent review of which settlements are actually hamlets, it was found that this community is not currently registered by Alberta as a hamlet, if it ever was. I propose that this article be deleted as it is short, and not notable. 117Avenue (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trout Lake Airport (Alberta). 117Avenue (talk) 01:15, 10 January 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, unambiguous copyright violation from a website with an unacceptable licence. Also repost of deleted material, original research, advertising, and etcetera. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street's Iconic Power Shirt: The Gekko

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Wall_Street's_Iconic_Power_Shirt:_The_Gekko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD) • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of an article already deleted in August 2009 for lack of notability and spam. Untruthful claims about the movie's shirtmaker (actually another one) and the meaning of the -shortlived- expression "Gekko shirt" (actually a white collar shirt as shown here). The article on the movie is sufficient. Delete. Racconish (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC) A rehash of this press release. Racconish (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A generic striped shirt finished with white collar and cuffs does not qualify it as a "Gekko" shirt, as mistakenly noted by the Greenwood Encyclopedia's errored attribution. Instead, its original nickname, "The Arrow Man Shirt," dates to the early-1900s. In the 1987 movie, Wall Street, there only a small handful of scenes that feature Michael Douglas wardrobed in shirt finished with a white "contrast" collar and white "contrast" white French cuff. They are not striped. Instead, all are solid colored bodied. The most prominent and memorable image features Douglas in his office with a solid, mid-blue bodied dress shirt finished with white collar and his sleeves rolled-up as: (1) he stands with his hands in his trouser pockets or (2)barks trading orders to assistants while reviewing financial data. That scene is also renowned for its Albert Thurston braces worn by Douglas.

History of the white collar and white cuffed shirt dates to the late-1890s. In the late-1800s to early-1900s, any striped or solid colored shirt finished with a white collar and white cuffs was nicknamed an "Arrow Collar Shirt" or the "Arrow Man Shirt," a moniker won from Arrow Shirt Company's unbiquitous domination of the debactable collar and cuff shirt business from the late-1800s through the early-1920s.

In the late-1970s to mid-1980s, the white collar and white cuff shirt, whether finished with a striped body or solid color body, gained still another nickname: the (1) "Lee Iacocca Shirt" or (2) "Iacocca Shirt," these later monikers earned from its on-screen favor with Lee Iacocca, then Chrysler's CEO and media spokesman. Beside worn countless times in network TV commercials by Iacocca during which he "touted" Chrysler's hugely successful turnaround and the company's entire re-payment -- plus interest -- of its government-backed bailout by American taxpayers, Iacocca also wore the white collar and white cuff shirt that the Greenwood Encyclopdia mistakenly calls the "Gekko" in hundreds of additional TV commercials between 1979 and 1984 while "pitching" the sale of Chrysler's product line-up to American buyers. The shirt style won still added fame from Iacocca's near constant news media coverage during countless nCongressional hearings and meetings. In nearly every newspaper photo image or broadcast news sound-bite from 1979 to 1984, Iaccoca is shown in either a striped or solid colored shirt finished with white collar and white cuffs, hence the shirt style's well-earned and media saturated nickname: "The Iacocca" or "Lee Iacocca Shirt."

Specifically, "The Gekko" refers to a (1) dress shirt (2) with a horizontally striped body, the (3) stripe pattern/weight typically called a "pencil" stripe. Even more specifically, it refers to a horizontally positioned, pencil striped shirt with its collar and cuffs finished in a vertical stripe motif whose diretion travels opposite the horizontal body stripe. In fashion-speak, this collar and cuff stripe format is called a "reverse stripe," thanks to its un-traditional "setting." "Setting," in fashion speak, refers to a pattern-motif's traditional design format.

The Gekko won it own fame -- as well as its nickname -- from a pivotal scene in Wall Street shot in New York's 21 Club that features Douglas and Sheen during a lunch meeting. In that scene, Douglas wears the black and white, horizontally striped dress shirt with reverese-striped collar and French cuff that retailers, fashion editors, journalists and writers, along with fashion-savvy consumers, all call "The Gekko." The Greenwood Encylcopedia's author, by the way, was never a fashion editor, fashion journalist nor noted fashion commentator at any major fashion magazine.

Please, re-watch 1987's Wall Street. Please, Wikipedia sooths, research the history of both the detachable collar shirt, its origins in Troy, New York. Then, research Lee Iacocca's photo images from the late-1970s to mid-1980s, all pre-dating Wall Street's 1987 debut. In addition, please call Karen Alberg, the editor-in-chief at MR magazine, menswear fashion trade magazine. Her number is redacted phone and e-mail.

I have two more suggestions: First, The Greenwood Enclyclopdia is riddled with errors. I would not use it again for accurate attribution. Second, Alex Kabbaz's claim to have created Michael Douglas's Wall Street shirts has been discredited, over and over, since his 1988 NY Times' claim as self-serving falsehood.

Alan Flusser was retained by Oliver Stone as Wall Street's wardrobing consultant. Beginning in the early-1980s, Mel Gambert created Flusser's branded shirts as a private label maker. To this day, Flusser's line up of Alan Flusser dress shirts are still Gambert made. Not a one made by Alex Kabbaz. Contact info redacted

Before handing out "Racoons," willy-nilly, my final suggestion is that Wikipedia's expert editors do both their homework and due diligence by consulting industry experts. My own book is now being considered for publication by both Fairchild and Assouline. I'm more than happy to provide chapter drafts for review. My apologies for not reviewing for either grammer or spelling.

Andy stinson (talk) 20:54, 11 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EPM Live

[edit]
EPM Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable business, a provider of project management software and Enterprise Project Management solutions based on the Microsoft SharePoint platform. Unambiguous advertising: With these features and its flexibility, EPM Live has been adopted by many enterprises around the world.... Google news archives yield minor trade awards, new product or financing announcements, and research reports: nothing of the sort that confers actual notability on a business like this.

This page has been deleted three times before, twice as blatant spam, once as proposed deletion: suggest WP:SALT on this one. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:15, 11 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daultan Leveille

[edit]
Daultan Leveille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Player has not played at a professional level, nor at the top international level. Thus, he fails to meet the criteria at WP:ATHLETE. The article can be recreated if/when he ever does play professionally or in top international competition. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references will need to be added to the article to confirm notability. Currently, the only references are from the OHA and his OHA team (the latter just points to the team's website, not any particular article), and a brief mention from the OHL that he was drafted in the 9th round of the 2006 OHL draft. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done two newspaper articles with significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure being drafted in the first round imbues notability. Do first rounders from the 60s (e.g. Alec Campbell and Andy Culligan, 2nd overall in 1964 and 1965, respectively) each deserve an article, when there are almost certainly no reliable sources with significant coverage of these two? Conversely, is a player drafted 30th overall nowadays (i.e. first round) more notable than a player drafted 7th overall from 1963 through 1966 (i.e. second round)? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now-a-days? Yes, you can almost completely be guaranteed that someone in the first round of the draft will have had atleast 3 articles about them which would make them pass WP:BIO and WP:V. As for first rounders back a long time ago, I am thinking there probably would have been articles written for them as well to pass, but I haven't personally gone looking. -DJSasso (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL entry draft was a different animal in the 1960s; before 1969, many players were signed by NHL clubs as teenagers or even as pre-teens, thus making the talent pool very slender. For instance, in that 1965 draft you cite, the closest thing to a substantive NHL player in that was Pierre Bouchard ... but among Bouchard's agemates were Bobby Orr, Rene Robert, Mickey Redmond, Guy Lapointe, Glenn Resch, Walt Tkaczuk and Garry Unger, the likes of whom would've dominated the draft had they been subjected to it. Beyond that, you had anomalies such as Montreal's right to select up to two Quebecois players as prior selections in lieu of their normal picks. The first genuinely open draft was 1970.  Ravenswing  19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the point. The point of notability criteria, either explicit or consensus-driven, is that hitting one or more is a qualifier, whether or not others are met. Leveille may indeed never play professional hockey, but no one advocating Keep claims that as a reason to do so. We claim that he does so by reason of being a first round draft choice, and that remains.  Ravenswing  14:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he passes [[WP:HOCKEY/PPF] but not WP:N (based on the references currently in the article). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He does pass WP:N based on the references present. There is nothing in WP:N that says local references are no good. The papers are both independant from him which is all that is required. And both are considered reliable. Nevermind the national TV station and website which is oen of the biggest hockey media organizations in the world. Really there is no case for claiming he doesn't pass WP:N. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for what its worth I just picked the first two articles that popped up in google with decent coverage about him. I could probably find non-local ones if necessary as well. First rounders are generally profiled in magazines like the hockey news and on stations like TSN. All of which are acceptable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 14 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noob tube

[edit]
Noob tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice prodded article; I placed 1st PROD and removed the 2nd, replacing it with this AfD. PROD rationales were: (1) WP:NEO; (2) No real content, no references, dubious notability I42 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Sender

[edit]
Sol Sender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the guy who designed the Barack Obama O-shaped campaign logo (this one). He does indeed have a decent amount of news coverage (though a surprisingly large amount of the GNews archive was false positives, like the Sol Sender who was killed in an Indiana bus crash in 1955). However, unless I'm missing some significant coverage not related to the logo, this seems to me like a pretty clear BLP1E, where all his notability derives from one thing he once designed for someone else, and he is otherwise a low-profile individual.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Glenfarclas, pretty clear BLP1E. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's certainly a reasonable viewpoint. To my thinking, the issue is that although Sender designed a well-known logo, there's really not much to say about him beyond that—as the article currently reflects. There's already an article about the logo, and Sender's role in creating it is well covered. Is there anything else about his biography that needs to be contained in an encyclopedia of global scope? You're right that the logo is significantly covered in secondary cources, but that doesn't mean anything about Sender's life is covered in secondary sources; it's not as though he's suddenly become independently notable. Maybe redirecting his name to Obama logo makes the most sense (a merge would be unnecessary because the relevant info is already there). Thanks for your reply--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:43, 13 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phibion Nyamudeza

[edit]
Phibion Nyamudeza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. Searching Google Scholar I find an article cited by 15 others but this was co-authored with several others (in fact his name does not appear as an author or editor in catalogues), his other publications have a trivial number of citations. Google News gets no matches and a more generalized search shows nothing to establish notability through wide public recognition. This page reads as a résumé and has little promise of being turned into an appropriate article that will meet the guidance of WP:BLP.

He has co-authored [Syers, John Keith; Nyamudeza, Phibion; Institute, International Water Management (2001), The sustainable management of vertisols, CABI, ISBN 9780851994505 ((citation)): Missing |author3= (help)] but this is a collection of conference proceedings and so is unlikely to demonstrate his impact on the field. Ash (talk) 10:37, 12 January 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. G7, blanked by creator Closedmouth (talk) 11:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vichay Phommachan

[edit]
Vichay Phommachan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor/singer with no valid claim to notability. Article de-prodded by creator (who uses same name as subject). No sources, no released singles. Only claim to notability is that subject was the first deaf person who auditioned for American Idol, but apparently did not make it on the show. Delete. Crusio (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:MUSICBIO Nancy talk 09:55, 12 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Burkhardt

[edit]
Julian Burkhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I speedied this, which the author then detagged, but on second thought I think I should put this here anyway. This is a Bollywood actor who's appeared on one movie, so I really don't think he can meet WP:ENT's guideline of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." GNews turns up two mentions of a sentence or two in articles about the movie he was in, and beyond that I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. By and large I don't nominate Bollywood-type film articles (or Thai fims, etc.) since I don't know how to evaluate what I find, but this one seemed pretty clear-cut, and when I searched his name in Hindi I got . . . well, not significant coverage.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:08, 12 January 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) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Mamić

[edit]
Ante Mamić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax, created by the user whose sole [undeleted] contribution is this. Ante Mamić is not listed in KK Split official website. Google search in Croatian does not yield any significant results: [46]; in English, it reveals only wikipedia and its mirrors. [47]. The author is apparently on a hoax-vandalism mission [48]; blocking and/or warning would be in order. No such user (talk) 08:44, 12 January 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 Abarat#Islands of the Abarat. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idjit

[edit]
Idjit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One entry on this dab page is a sort of word definition, the other an obscure reference to a novel, hardly enough to justify this page's existence. Wouldn't object to a redirect though. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sency

[edit]
Sency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance (a lot of blog entries). Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 07:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What does establish notability for a website if not traffic and page ranking?
  • Comment Is the wikipedia standard for a website article simply or primarily having news or press coverage? It seems to me that press coverage is a poor standard of notability. Actual use of the website IE traffic and page ranking is, by nature of the actual purpose of any website, a significant measurement.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Twomey

[edit]
John Twomey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This article fails WP:BIO and, if he's still alive, WP:BLP as well. I am unable to find reliable third party sources to corroborate any of the information presented. JBsupreme (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic suitable for Google News Archive search. The subject was known in the USA in the 1970s and a lot of US magazines and newspapers from that time are archived there. It isn't perfect, but sometimes it is helpful. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last two articles you are linking to are the exact same, are they not? I'm not entirely convinced that GNG is "clearly established" as Wolfowitz suggests, but I'm trying to give this the benefit of the doubt. JBsupreme (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I fixed the link here and in the article. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Vejvančický.--Howard|SF 12:11, 12 January 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) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Hussein Abdul Hamid

[edit]
Mohd Hussein Abdul Hamid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, simply being a chief operating officer does not mean you're notable. there is not significant indepth coverage about him. some of these articles merely verify his existence. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 12 January 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) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage (Joshua Tree Rules)

[edit]
Cribbage (Joshua Tree Rules) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable cribbage variation, see e.g. at Google. Not mentioned in the sources cited, not found in any reliable sources. Possibly a case for WP:NFT. Author contested my PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:39, 12 January 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) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt rising

[edit]
Revolt rising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future novel, completely fails WP:NBOOK. Author removed another editor's speedy tag, and I'm willing to accept that the article is not entirely blatant advertising, since it does discuss the author and plot. Author contested my PROD, so here we are.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:No legal threats and immediately retract or clarify this before you get blocked.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:46, 12 January 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) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 634

[edit]
United Airlines Flight 634 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Really minor incident and fails WP: AIRCRASH...No injuries (even minor), no damage to the aircraft (only the engine will likey need to be repaired), etc. Spikydan1 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 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) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backflip Studios

[edit]
Backflip Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A 6 employee game developer that is developing an, apparently popular, iphone app/game.

The game they made, paper toss, perhaps is notable (it has a page of its own, along with some forks, which are of questionable notability), but that doesn't inherit to the parent company.

The news search reveals 2 sources in the past month, both of which talk about the game. Lots of social networking presence for the company, but not a lot of third party rs links. Shadowjams (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, they don't just develop a 'game', they develop multiple games. --NerdyScienceDude :) (click here to talk to me) 14:46, 12 January 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 close, take to WP:RfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM advertising controversy

[edit]
IIPM advertising controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM advertising controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. A similar AfD has been raised by me for another similar redirect page. We can club the discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM Advertising Controversy ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:34, 12 January 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 close, take to WP:RfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Advertising Controversy: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

[edit]
IIPM Advertising Controversy: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. A similar AfD has been raised by me for another similar redirect page. We can club the discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM Advertising Controversy ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:20, 12 January 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 close, take to WP:RfD. -SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Controversy

[edit]
IIPM Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. A similar AfD has been raised by me for another similar redirect page. We can club the discussions here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IIPM Advertising Controversy ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:17, 12 January 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 close, take to WP:RfD -SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Advertising Controversy

[edit]
IIPM Advertising Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The redirect uses an acronym IIPM in its name IIPM Advertising Controversy but there are many institutions that go by the name IIPM. Further, current naming conventions disallow the usage of the acronym in the title name unless the particular institution also uses it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:13, 12 January 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) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An angel fell through my window

[edit]
An angel fell through my window (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was speedy deleted as ((db-A7)), recreated by the same author, and appears to fail WP:NBOOK. While the book is indeed real, the only secondary source I could find was a blog. The official description used on bookseller websites claims it is a "Quizilla Mibba and Wattpad classic", but I couldn't find any sources backing it up. Liqudluck✽talk 04:03, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Colton

[edit]
Greg Colton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to satisfy notability. Article was prodded before, working as a crew member on some TV shows doesn't make someone notable and there are zero references establishing notability. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:03, 12 January 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) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombax (software)

[edit]
Bombax (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant independent coverage of this Mac OS software. In fact, +bombax "mac os" -wikipedia returns only 104 GHits. There's this page from ciol.com, which looks like it could maybe be a tech news site, but as it turns out the entire article is just this press release from PRWeb. Fails notability.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:49, 12 January 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GVMC Dutch Bungalow

[edit]
GVMC Dutch Bungalow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability in that it fails to show significant coverage in multiple independent sources. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: submitting in good faith for IP. tedder (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regrettably, "GVMC Dutch Bungalow" is a term made up for this article because "Dutch Bungalow" was considered "too general." Since it sounds like Dutch Bungalow actually is what they call it, I could support a redirect from that term, or from that term with an appropriate parenthetical, but not from the invented "GVMC" title.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:27, 12 January 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) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aladna

[edit]
Aladna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this looks like a plausible article, it looks like seems that the Aladna is just completely made up. None of the ten references given mention it (or mandon, or nyolin), and my other searches find nothing. The author is also responsible for contributing the made-up religion Taakatism, which is itself at AfD here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:04, 12 January 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) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maryse Schembri

[edit]
Maryse Schembri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, non notable. Seems self promotional Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:48, 12 January 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 WP:CSD G4. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi Hernandez

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gabi Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice previously deleted article continously added back by disruptive editor. Non notable new soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 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) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbybass

[edit]
Bobbybass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No RS, no assertion of notability, appears autobiographical. PROD challenged. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 12 January 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. Will leave the renaming and merging as possible editor decisions via consensus and talk page discussion. :) Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethernet Way versus IEEE Way

[edit]
Ethernet Way versus IEEE Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTHOWTO and its all WP:OR. As an aside the title fails WP:TITLE KelleyCook (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adendum: - forgot to mention that this is also known as the "5-4-3-2-1 rule" as seen here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:32, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Brady

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Caroline Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

previously deleted article by disruptive new editor, non notable soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with the article. I added more references, all the information is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs) 22:56, 17 January 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) 01:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Luv

[edit]
Leah Luv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person based on WP:PORNBIO. -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Virtually all sourcing is promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 12 January 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dancap Productions

[edit]
Dancap Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally tagged for CSD under A7, however, I am retracting the tag based on the creator's updates and talk page comments. However, I think this might require wider scrutiny in terms of general notability. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:25, 12 January 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) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christa Beran

[edit]
Christa Beran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Beran's deeds are laudable, there are over 22,000 recipients of the honor of "Righteous among the Nations". Surely not all of them are notable solely for this honor. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not enough information or distinction for notability , but I want to point out that there is no limit to the size of Wikipedia. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:24, 12 January 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) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision World

[edit]
Revision World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable website. wjematherbigissue 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:22, 12 January 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) 02:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Copeman

[edit]
Philip Copeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is basically a CV / autobiog. I am bringing it to AfD because I cannot find good independent sources that cover Philip Copeman as an individual, only news hits are short quotes from him to do with software. He previously upped his role in the TurboCASH article with this edit. He seems to be a very good self promoter so sources will need careful vetting. His book God's First Fisherman is self-published. Polargeo (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:20, 12 January 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) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayttm

[edit]
Ayttm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Ayttm, or "Are you talking to me?" is one of many many free instant messaging clients available today. I am unable to find anything particularly notable about this one. The most substantial thing I could find was in the book "Deploying Linux on the desktop‎" which has a passing blurb about it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 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) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Angel Hypothesis

[edit]
My Angel Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Tysin Nagel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book published through a vanity publisher. I can find no significant independent coverage of this work at all. Also nominating the new article on the book's protagonist.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't speak for Moonriddengirl (who seems to have been concerned by the overly long quotation), but for my part I "targeted" these articles only because the subjects are just not notable. I mean, there's absolutely no need for a separate article on Tysin Nagel (check the Google hits on him, for instance), and after my PROD there was removed I considered whether to suggest merging him into the book's article, but ended up concluding that it did not meet WP:NBOOK in any way. If you're worried about anti-gay bias here, check today's Articles for Deletion log, I assure you people suggest the deletion of everything under the sun. I hope this helps explain my thinking--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO ADD: You asked "Why do some articles have much less or no 'reliable' sources than this one, but they're not nominated for deletion[?]" I hear you, but check out WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 12 January 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) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Islam - Ridda Sufism

[edit]
Sunni Islam - Ridda Sufism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already a detailed article about Apostasy in Islam. This article seems to cover one minor aspect of that topic. A redirect doesn't seem appropriate as this is an unlikely search term. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 12 January 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 ThisGirl. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThisGirl Discography

[edit]
ThisGirl Discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 12 January 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 Outline of Sudan. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Sudan-related topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

Delete. This was last discussed back in September 2008 and the result was no consensus. It should probably be noted that Portal:Sudan has also since been deleted. I do still believe that this list is not helpful as a navigational aid, as it is simply too broad a subject with the potential to list thousands upon thousands of different articles. This fails WP:LIST and lacks both prose and proper sources, not that it would help the scope problem. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:15, 12 January 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) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThisGirl

[edit]
ThisGirl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:14, 12 January 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. Continued merge discussion on the article's talk page would be encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uno (ThisGirl album)

[edit]
Uno (ThisGirl album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did assume good faith. I assumed that you did your best to find reliable sources, that you added the best you found to the article, but the best source available was the pre-release announcement by the record label. That's why I don't believe that this article can be improved. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:13, 12 January 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) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Varde

[edit]
Bettina Varde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:11, 12 January 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) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juxtacrux

[edit]
Juxtacrux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very non-notable student radio program. I can find no remotely significant information, setting aside two or three spurious references in medical journals. My PROD was contested by a SPA IP.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:10, 12 January 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) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majin

[edit]
Majin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consists only of a list of examples of usage of a term in fictional works. Does not assert or display notability. — flamingspinach | (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that, without the list of cultural references, it would just be a dictionary definition. Maybe that's how it should be tagged. Deb (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:52, 12 January 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) 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Association of Dental Students

[edit]
Malta Association of Dental Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already deleted once due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MADS, however that was early 2006. I can't see any news or books which mention this organisation using its full name. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Malta Dental Students was a duplicate; I've redirected it to this article now. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:51, 12 January 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) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil T. Patterson

[edit]
Cecil T. Patterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Martial arts expert. Notability is asserted, but not established through third-party reliable sources. Google returns nothing of substance. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


A complete list of references are provided. In addition, those web sources have their url. When you click on any of the urls, you are taken to the web source being referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiJuShiHo (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that they all qualify as primary sources and are therefore inadequate to show notability. What you should look for is third-party reliable sources, that is, the kind the USEWF cannot get any changes made to without contacting their attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I understand what you mean....a lightbulb moment. Only three of the sources are hard copy published texts...even so they are vanity publications. I fear that I would not be able to find any sources outside of the few that I reference. I will see if I can find other sources on the topic. Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiJuShiHo (talk • contribs) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:44, 12 January 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 Non-admin closure, RESULT Speedy Delete A7 ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason flick

[edit]
Jason flick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can not find any reliable sources to support the claims of notability. Nothing on Omaha Domino Association either. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:42, 12 January 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) 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arkin Magalona

[edit]
Arkin Magalona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nothing in gnews [88]. only the IMDB listing proves his acting roles but no evidence these were significant roles to meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per G5 by NuclearWarfare. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kronenberg

[edit]
David Kronenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a child actor with only minor roles and no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:38, 12 January 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) 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxbridge Academic Programs

[edit]
Oxbridge Academic Programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no significant, independent coverage of this organization, and see no other signs of encyclopedic notability. Having notable guest speakers does not make a group notable by association.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As User:DGG mentioned, the info in these publications is derived from the organisation itself. Merely posting a googlebook search link and palming it off for notability establishes nothing. The majority of the GBook search results are Peteresen in some form or another - and the publications should be reliable not the organisations behind the publications. Why is this organisation notable ? I have no quarrel with (and considerable respect for) User:DGG who openly declares his biases/POV on his User page ("keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion"), but I can't say the same for you as yet because your past editing history is hidden. Annette46 (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, editors who've accepted the invitation to contribute without registration often face such accusations... Werner Heisenberg (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search through Google news archives also returns numerous local news articles, the editors apparently finding it newsworthy that local pupils have passed the entrance criteria and been accepted for these programs, or received awards while participating in them: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. Apart from being secondary coverage, it's also evidence of the international scope of the organisation's activities, satisfying the alternate criteria for non-commercial organizations, which seems to be the best-fitting section at WP:ORG, with the book results and news articles being some evidence for general notability. Holly25 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Glenn Cannon (bassist). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Cannon (bassist)

[edit]
Glenn Cannon (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Simple google search plus "bass" reveals primary sources only. Shadowjams (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:35, 12 January 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 17:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson, Jr

[edit]
Michael Johnson, Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former college athlete. Article just appears to be a list of his triple jump records. OCNative (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:34, 12 January 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. Icewedge (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latense

[edit]
Latense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a Swedish band that fails WP:Nas it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. It also fails WP:BAND because it has not released any hit songs nor has it impacted its genre significantly. I think this squeaks by db-band if only because of the (poorly) sourced statement that the band has received positive reviews. ThemFromSpace 01:32, 12 January 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 by SatyrTN (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A5: Article that has already been transwikied to another project. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belt Tightening

[edit]
Belt Tightening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by article's creator. This article fails WP:NOTDICT as it is nothing more than a dictionary definition. It lacks sources or any material showing why the subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Also I can't think of any place to suitable redirect this. ThemFromSpace 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. ThemFromSpace 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... Thank you! By the way, maybe for the future, you could use this template to help ya out! smithers - talk 03:28, 12 January 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 Nomination withdrawn. (NAC) ThemFromSpace 05:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lasco Jamaica

[edit]
Lasco Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that this grouping of companies meets our notability guidelines because they haven't received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage appears to be related to their sponsorship of a non-notable award. ThemFromSpace 01:10, 12 January 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. One of the keep "votes" was issued by a now blocked user. Another comes from an account with previous COI issues. With that in mind, the arguments for deletion appear to be strongly backed up by policy. Although this discussion is somewhat borderline, I think consensus is clear enough. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris C. Kemp

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Chris C. Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

COI issues, sources only mention him in passing, sources do not reference the fact being cited, little improvement in 3rd party sources, writing style makes me believe there is some sockpuppetry going on here User:Velvetsmog (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(For reference, here is the result of the first nomination.)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:10, 12 January 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) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamón (card game)

[edit]
Jamón (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fake/Hoax. No Google hits, the cited sources proove nothing. See also this discussion at dewiki and this deletion debate. PaterMcFly talk contribs 12:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:09, 12 January 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. Icewedge (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kepple

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Andrew Kepple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are the reasons I think this article should be deleted: a) Article has no reliable sources to prove notability b) It seems a bit self-published judging by the fact that one of the references was a facebook page until I removed it c) The only important thing I can see in the page is that this artist won "first place in their annual Tournament Of Flash Artists (TOFA) in 2008". Checking the Tournaments page this means the artist won "$200, and Crysis and Bioshock for the PC." I think this tournament is not notable. I 'll withdraw this AfD if article is covered by 3rd-party sources. If there are any we can work after that to remove peacock terms. Magioladitis (talk) 01:02, 12 January 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 Redirected to Charles Phu with an ((R from alternate language)) template. The article was no more no less than a translation of its new target. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Чарльз Фу

[edit]
Чарльз Фу (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not English iBendiscuss/contribsHow's my driving? 00:47, 12 January 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. WP:SK #2 applies. The previous AfD was closed as keep just 8 days ago, and another AfD right after the requested move discussion did not end in the nominator's preferred outcome (renaming) is forum shopping. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was no consensus to moving the page. I argue that it either be deleted or moved, as it continues to be libelous to a BLP of which very little is known or can be sourced Hoolio9690 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Hoolio9690[reply]

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