< 15 January	17 January >

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With thanks to DanielRigal and others for the improvements. Sandstein 06:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svarbhānu

[edit]

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

Incoherent essay with no clear context, just a jumble of strange assertions such as "Svarbhānu ushered Kālanemi through the galaxy" which we're somehow meant to pull together into a coherent whole. Impossible for the average WP reader to make any sense of this article. I can't see any way of cleaning it up. andy (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reserving judgement for now~~. I agree with the nomination up until the last bit. The article is completely incomprehensible to a lay reader such as myself. The reason I deproded it is that it was rated mid importance by WikiProject Hinduism, so clearly it must make some sense to people who already understand the subject area. There may well be a valid subject lurking in here. While I can't see how to clean it up myself, it might not take too much work for somebody who understands this subject to provide the contextual information needed to enable the rest of us to make sense of it. Lets see if anybody can sort it out. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A Hindu Asura (demonic deity) traditionally held responsible for solar eclipses. Check out the 654 references in a Google Books search for a quick proof of notability. Article needs tidying up so as to be intelligible, but that's a content issue. Holly25 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I have used your explanation as a replacement introduction to the article and it helps a lot. I also added the article to the category for Asuras. I notice that it is not on List of Asuras. Is that an oversight?

I notice from a very cursory look at the list of books you provide that several of them equate Rahu and Svarbhanu. Are they really the same and, if so, should we be looking to merge or redirect this article to Rahu?

Another thing I think we need help with is in gutting out any original research or improper synthesis. Is the alleged Norse connection really valid? --DanielRigal (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I very much doubt if there's anything in the Norse connection. The author is a fringe theorist who tends to throw in all sorts of loose associations like this as if they were facts. See the current AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament as political satire and check out the author's Talk page. I think it would be extremely unwise to take anything in this article as true without carefully checking the references. IMHO the only way to be sure it's safe is a 100% rewrite by a subject expert, which is why I suggested deleting it as unsalvageable. andy (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, but from what I can gather, Svarbhanu (also transliterated Swarbhanu) is much older than Rahu - it exists in the earliest Vedic texts, whereas Rahu only appears much later. The identification of the two seems to be a theory of some scholars based on the similarity of their roles, not something ever stated explicitly in the texts - and as the article says, one text says Svarbhanu split into Rahu and Ketu. So it's best to keep them separate, like the Greek Ares and its Roman equivalent Mars (mythology). It should be in the list of Asuras though. Holly25 (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Svarbhanu seems to be a Vedic predecessor of Rahu, like god Shiva inherits the characteristics of the Vedic Rudra.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now that we are clear that this is a genuine subject related to but distinct from Rahu, and article is being drastically improved, I am happy to call it a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lot of good work's been done on it, still needs some more probably but definitely seems notable. Plenty of references in google books even apart from what's in the article already, and seems to be distinct from Rahu.--Beloved Freak 21:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Redtigerxyz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:59, 21 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 result was keep. WP:IAR; let's not have a main page entry at AfD please. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Papua New Guinea bus crash

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2010 Papua New Guinea bus crash

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

Sorry, tragic bus accident but not notable in the scheme of an encyclopedia. This is news. At most, the fact can be inserted into the Papua New Guinea article or the article of the nearest city. In the footnotes, a little more information can be supplied. Goldamania (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Papua New Guinea's worst ever road accident. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's references show coverage by reliable sources in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. If the Washington Post and the Miami Herald consider an event in Papua New Guinea notable, it probably is. - Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Richard Cavell. It would certainly be inappropriate to merge this to the country article as Goldamania suggests, and the nearest city, Lae, is 130 km away, so not really relevant. I don't believe there's an article on the highway on which the crash occurred.-gadfium 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have to agree with the above. It also came under discussion at ITN where it successfully made it onto the Main Page as Papua New Guinea's worst ever road accident, therefore not news but an event that Papua New Guinea will not forget easily. Was mentioned by politicians in Papua New Guinea. Media coverage across the Southern Hemisphere. --candle•wicke 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator's motivation was misguided. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any occurrence that is the most destructive or tragic accident or event in a country's history should be covered.--FPAtl AEC♥ T C 00:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Complete absence of non-WP Ghits or any other confirmation for a "well-known" character makes this a WP:CSD#G3 hoax JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Hisayo

[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I found no Google hits for this character other than Wikipedia. The character also isn't listed at the lists of characters on Anime News Network or MyAnimeList [1][2], and doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Reborn wiki [3], which are all sites I would think would mention a character from Reborn!. Calathan (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously, if it proves to be not a hoax. However, trying out my brandnew custom search engine with that name (http://www.google.com/ cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=Haya+Hisayo) I didn't find any hits either, which makes me suspicious that it is as you say. In which case, this deserves a speedy delete. --Gwern (contribs) 00:50 17 January 2010 (GMT)
- Delete. Its a fake character, I know the series. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3, the character does not exist, no hits on google. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:V, and WP:RS. The article claims that this character is well known, but it gets zero hits on Google, let alone in any reliable sources found on Google News, Google Books, etc. Is it a misspelling? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fake. Look at the text the author has written. You can clearly see that it is a hoax.--Heymid (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say clearly. I've seen far more atrocious character articles which turned out to be genuine. --Gwern (contribs) 14:22 17 January 2010 (GMT)

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony road

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has not commenced filming so fails WP:NFF. No independent sources to assert notability - indeed, no internet presence except the film producer's own twitter, facebook and blog sites. I42 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per WP:NFF, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. When it is released, this can be re-created as Ebony Road. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature. With respects to Bearian, the film can be WP:Verified [4][5], but yes, as yet does not have enough to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i think salting is possibly incorrect. wouldnt this be a redirect if and when the film becomes notable?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to have started filming but no significant coverage in independent WP:RS, so does not meet notability guidelines (WP:NFF or WP:GNG) Would be a reasonable redirect if and when the article is recreated at Ebony Road.--Beloved Freak 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film's blog at [6] suggests they are still casting. I42 (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daina Gozan

[edit]

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

Notability not sufficiently established, not much found in news search, article seems to have primarily been created to make certain suggestions that violate the biographies of living persons policy. See this thread for more details on that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If she were notable there'd be notable mentions somewhere - all I'm seeing in Google is the odd movie search engine result and publicity. Rarely if ever does one appearance in a named role connote notability. Wikipedia is not here to give "aspiring singers" free publicity. (What's an "aspiring singer" anyway? You either open your mouth and sing or you don't; you don't aspire to sing.) --NellieBly (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uuntil such time if/when her career grows and she recieves coverage in reliable sources, article far too premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can see no significant coverage in reliable sources, one tiny mention in a film review, one role in a completed production, upcoming roles of "student" and "neighbor".... nothing here to suggest she meets notability guidelines. She may do one day, but not yet. --Beloved Freak 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable neither as actress or singer, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Oleo

[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in the book “The Internet Yellow Pages” by Harley Hahn and Rick Stout (1994) on page 304 (this is the first Google Books search result), as well as “The Linux Cookbook: tips and techniques for everyday use by Michael Stutz on page 302. Samboy (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two small mentions isn't significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ ~~Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. The book results above don't cover the subject in detail. Unsourced. — Rankiri (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)~~^{(significant improvements; newfound sources — Rankiri (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC))}[reply]
Strong keep per mentions in numerous independent sources. E.g. [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]. These are a few I could locate with 30 seconds of work, but they clearly show that the software is incorporated into many Linux distros, source repositories; user discussion sites, etc. LotLE×talk 01:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that is significant coverage. You said that you helped write the notability guidelines, but I sure don't believe it. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but none of these sources satisfy WP:GNG. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. Has a paragraph in Stutz's book, and also one in this, this, and this Linux Journal articles. Clearly this software was discontinued early 2000s, but it has some historical significance. It started out as a text-only spreadsheet, and was the only FOSS alternative to the text mode sc (software) back then. It then acquired a Motif gui, and was the only the only GUI competitor to gnumeric (unless you count the xpread front for sc). Given that there were much fewer linux web publications back then, and most old books and magazines aren't searchable in google books, we need to give it the benefit of the doubt that more sources exist. The ones found are enough for a stub. Also gnumeric is capable of importing oleo spreadsheets, which means it had a somewhat significant user base to be worth the hassle of writing the import code. Pcap ping 07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is round-up review from BsdToday, a publication that is defunct now, but was reliable (editorial staff, etc.) part of Internet.com sites. Also given as top 10 linux console application in this linux.com article, and another blurb in another now-defunct defunct magazine (reproduced by Linux Today, luckily). Also it's the only spreadsheet mentioned in this 1996 iX (magazine) article as "GNU's response to Excel". There's enough critical coverage in these 6 independent sources to write a WP:NPOV stub. Pcap ping 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Pcap ping 13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of coverage for GNU Oleo on Google, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'keep plenty of refs. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be useful software in the Linux community, well established and free. Perhaps someone could explain the "Oleo" name. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently a nomination without attempt to look for sources. since they have been found, there is no reason for deletion. such nominations waste everyone's time. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always look for sources before nominating. I said "I can't find significant coverage for this software". Are you calling me a liar? Joe Chill (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

my meaning was without adequate attempt to look for sources, judging by the results that others found. DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because others found sources, doesn't mean that I didn't try as hard as I could. Saying that comment is assuming bad faith and doesn't do anything besides start arguments. In AfD, others can find good sources and others can't. Saying that comment to anyone that can't is disruptive. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Joe -- I have an idea ... pls see below. I think that would be a step in the right direction. Thanks for your consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow/Speedy Keep. Per the above. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), that might perhaps save some people some time.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justice For Jeremy

[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no improvement, Non-notable organization. Some coverage exists, but not enough to meet notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable organization. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A worthy effort to spread the word, but this ad hoc group is not notable. The news archive turns up a few false positives on "Justice for Jeremy" used in relation to a Jeffrey Dahmer victim, a kid arrested for writing in wet concrete, and so on, but not this group. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence in the article that the organisation meets notability guidelines and I can see nothing on google or google news that looks like significant coverage in reliable sources. Even some of the references in the article don't mention the group. --Beloved Freak 21:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being a worthy cause, this fails WP:GNG. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Waggoner

[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no improvement. While a murder is tragic, this victim is does not meet notability guidelines. He is known for one event only and that is not something he did , but being a victim. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E which is not limited to BLPs. I can't find coverage to suggest the event of his murder is significant enough to warrant its own article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, he was murdered. No, that does not mean that you belong in an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found anything beyond the sort of routine local coverage that would be expected in a 1E, and not even very much of that. He might become an encyclopedically notable crime victim (e.g., Matthew Shepard) in the future, but I don't see signs of it. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I added relevant details from this entry to Violence_against_LGBT_people#2000-2009. That is the appropriate place for this info on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmclaughlin9 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 17 January 2010
Delete - per WP:BIO1E. It's sad, but his only claim to notability is being murdered in a possible hate crime, and there is no sign that this murder will take on the significance of Matthew Shepard. I was quite surprised to only find 1 gnews hit related to this incidence.--Beloved Freak 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Keep in the sense of "not delete". The relatively few "delete" opinions claim that the subject is insufficiently notable, but they do not generally discuss why in terms of the notability guideline, and are thus less than compelling. About half of the other participants want the article merged, but that's not enough for a "merge" consensus. Any merge consensus therefore needs to be found through continued talk page discussion. Sandstein 06:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday

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

This event does not meet WP:N requirements and the assertations it gives are poorly sourced. After a week with no expansion I feel it is due for deletion. The birthday celebrations of world leaders past or present are not notable in of themselves, and while there may have been a large parade, all claims that it was "the largest celebration in history" are unsourced hyperbole and propaganda. Rapier1 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meh! The guy turned fifty, had a party, had a big parade, yadda, yadda, yadda. How was his 50th birthday any more notable than his 51st? How was his birthday parade any more notable than that covered by Riefenstahl et al.? Eddie.willers (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a notable and significant event. Garibaldi Baconfat 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article can be kept with a broadened scope on Hitler's birthdays, as in the German Wikipedia: de:Führergeburtstag is about all of them, including a tiny bit of post-war history. (It doesn't say anything about the date's importance for neo-Nazis, unfortunately). It also has some more sources, but most of them are not directly about Hitler's 50th birthday (and of course, in German). —Кузьма^討論 20:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adolf Hitler. smithers - talk 21:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adolf Hitler and de-merge later when or if it reaches to a size where it needs its own article. --123.243.102.177 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete It's only source is the Daily Mail for crissakes! Can you say 'slow news day' or 'punishing the writer'? This isn't needed unless anything exciting happened, which reading it, nothing much happened except a power show to the world which had been done many times before. Nate • (chatter) 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling The Daily Mail a pro-fascist piece of tabloid crap? Garibaldi Baconfat 22:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did support the Nazis until they refused to leave Poland (which was what caused us to go to war with them)… DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying The Daily Mail espoused Nazi propaganda? Garibaldi Baconfat 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm calling it a newspaper with some silly stories of questionable news value and accuracy like this one. Nate • (chatter) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Keep Now well-sourced way beyond just the cite above, so the concerns about one primary source defining an article I had were addressed. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adolf Hitler until we can find anything of note. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DitzyNizzy. Birthdays can indeed be notable - Stalin's 50th birthday was a national holiday in the USSR *and* the impetus for much reliably-sourced manipulation of the historical record. I just don't see the references here to show that Hitler's 50th was of the same notability. One article in the Daily Mail does not make the birthday pass WP:GNG. --NellieBly (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adolf Hitler Connormah (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Adolf Hitler as per the merge arguments above. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge, otherwise delete: It is fairly common for political leaders of a certain sort to have their own birthdays enshrined as national events - I'm not certain that Hitler's big party is more notable than equivalent shebangs thrown for other leaders great and small. but that's a sourcing issue that can be worked out on the Hitler article after the merge. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. World records which can be attested are generally notable. The article claims that it was "the biggest birthday celebration in the history of mankind" and "biggest military parade of all times". It was filmed, and the newsreel documenting the parade and other events is probably notable in itself, although not on the scale of Triumph of the Will, the film of the 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. This was propaganda from a government that intimately understood the role of propaganda in both domestic politics and influencing public opinion in other countries. - Eastmain (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not to be argumentative, but here's an equivalent for Kim Jong Il. Should we have a separate page for this, as well? serious question. --Ludwigs2 07:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and look at the written records of the Roman Empire's Legions on parade after a successful campaign under the Caesars. These were the extravaganzas that Hitler was trying to mimic. There is no evidence that there was any kind of record broken here, nor is a birthday celebration notable in of itself, otherwise we'd have an article on Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" to JFK. Rapier1 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adolf Hitler - I can see no reason for a separate article at this time. By the way, it's just an uncited claim that it was any sort of world record, and I can find no evidence of it - to the contrary, what I can find makes no suggestion that it was the largest. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was evidently a great occasion like Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II for which we have a fine article. There are numerous sources and I have added a few. The comments above, which were based just upon the one source provided in the first draft, are now obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable event due to the fact that a public exibition ( military parade ) took place.User:Lucifero4
Keep but rename and expand scope. This really does not seem that notable. Lots of leaders have big parades on thier birthdays. even with the new sources there is no evidacne that this was considerd a significant event outside Germany (ands with hte exception of Danzig outside Berlin). Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II was an international celibration, the royal couple journeyed more than 64,000 kilometres (not just within the confines of one city) and celibrations were held in such places as New York. But his birthday is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and expand scope. There's plenty of material to write about Hitler's birthday in general, from its use as a focus for Neo-Nazis to its appearance in fiction (e.g. Fatherland). Fences&Windows 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 18:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

making this page about Hitlers birthday in general and not specifcaly his 50th, yes I could go with that. As has been popinted out Kim Il Sung 50th birthday was the occasion for massive celebrations, exceeded only by those for the 80th birthday of Kim Il Sung, So not its not unique (other then being the only time Hilter had a 50th birthday). Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adolf Hitler. Having an article about this one event (which happened after the man died) is completely giving undue weight. Killiondude (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Hitler was very much alive in 1939. --10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
lol :))))) We are having people with VERY HIGH historical knowledge, voting in here.--Professional Assassin (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (rename to Führergeburtstag), and copyedit. I get the impression, although the article should be expanded, that this was a major public political event (held at a crucial moment in the history of Europe). Shouldn't there be some photos of the event at commons, from the German federal archives? --Soman (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, if we convert the article into a general article on Hitler's birthdays in general, there is a German interwiki at de:Führergeburtstag. --Soman (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With regards to notability and importance of this events, there is absolutely no doubt! The nomination for deletion of such a huge event which is unique in the history of modern mankind, sounds political to me. Hence this website is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a political battleground, I suggest to immediately close this debate and KEEP the article. I am planning to REALLY expand the article and put tones of pictures and also VIDEOS to show the enormous size of the ceremony. I don't think such huge ceremony repeats in at least near future in our world.--Professional Assassin (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume the same assumptions of good faith that you would expect from others. As has been pointed out Kim Il Sung 50th birthday was the occasion for massive celebrations, exceeded only by those for the 80th birthday of Kim Il Sung, So not its not unique (other then being the only time Hilter had a 50th birthday). Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Adolf Hitler or delete. Not enough notability for its own article. It isn't unique, many leaders have had overblown celebrations. This debate will obviously continue until there is consensus, not when one editor thinks it should stop, after only two days. None of the current sources support claims of enormous scale, apart perhaps, from the single, rather dubious Daily Mail article. Many of the other details are rather mundane and barely notable. People gave speeches, fawned, and brewed a beer; underwhelming. Hohum (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand This was a major event, worthy of its own article. I like Colonel Warden's comparison to Elizabeth II's Golden Jubilee. The article is still young and already relatively well-sourced, and could certainly grow in its scope per several above comments. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the OP here I can say that I'd support a Merge to the Adolf Hitler article, as it would make a good section within that article. However, if someone were to do this I'd like to see better sourcing for the facts. Rapier1 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. It was obviouly extremely notable at the time but if he had other notable birthday celebrations then make it an article about Hitlers birthdays in general. Weakopedia (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some users above, suggest that a new article should be created for Hitler's Birthdays and the contents of the current article should be moved to that article. They also bring an example from German Wikipedia, "Führergeburtstag". Well doing so is NOT OK because: 1- Hitler's 50th birthday was something different from his other birthdays, comparing the scale of celebrations. It was bigger than Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee, just watch the films which I have added their links to the article! 2- German Wikipedia has too much lower standards than English Wikipedia. It is also a highly censored and politically biased project which should comply with Federal Republic of Germany's laws. We should not look at (and follow) what do they do in their project, as English Wikipedia is NOT censored and it must be kept politically neutral.--Professional Assassin (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How was it biger then the golden jubilee, did he travel 40,000 miles on a world tour (did he travel outside Berlin?). Were there street parties across Germany? Did the celibration take place over three days, including a concert attended by 12,500 or a nation wide mu7sic festival invloving 300 towns (again was there any celibration outside Berlin?)? I shant go on with more examples but I will say this was one millitary parade, with some very minor gift giinv, and one significant gift.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Hohum's reasoning. So far, there has been no actual evidence provided that this particular dictator's orgiastic self-celebration was any more notable (or any larger) than many other dictators' orgiastic self-celebrations. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you watch the film, you will see in your so called self-celebration, there are hundreds of thousands of eager ordinary Germans chanting for their Führer. Whether or not if today people like it, Hitler was the most popular leader of that time, because of his unbelievable success in restoring German pride. The event was huge (much bigger than Elizabeth's Golden Jubilee), it is surely exceeds Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. There are also other articles in Wikipedia about much smaller and less notable military parades which no one has objected their existence in wiki like 2008 Moscow Victory Day Parade, 2009 Moscow Victory Day Parade, Moscow Victory Parade of 1945 etc... --Professional Assassin (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:PROVEIT. Also, we are deciding this article's merit for inclusion, not the probable lack of merit of others. I see that it isn't being meaningfully expanded, nor gaining sources that support its scale or importance. Sources which support minor mundane events are of no help justifying its inclusion. Hohum (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is obvious that you DON'T WANT to see the sources, books, videos etc... It is pretty typical, if it relates to Hitler then it should be deleted. There is no point discussing matters with people like you.--Professional Assassin (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked for them to be provided to justify the article, if you can't provide them, who can you blame? Hohum (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PA, Please assume good faith when working with other editors. Yes, Adolf Hitler's Germany is an emotional topic (pro and con), but most editors commenting here are giving your article honest consideration and offering solid advice to make it better. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Rapier1 (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ World War 2 was not a minor mundane event. It is the thesis of the first substantial source that this birthday was decisive in firming Hitler's resolve to go to war before he got much older. Other sources document the relationship of this event to Danzig which was the specific casus belli. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary claims like that need extraordinary sources. The current sources are poor. So WP:PROVEIT. Still waiting. Hohum (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable event. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notable enough for it's own, short, underwhelming article, or notable enough to be merged as a small section of Adolf Hitler? Hohum (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be disparaging about the work that has gone into the article. Very many articles here in Wikipedia are much shorter and your sense of underwhelment is a personal thing that could be easily overcome by changing the article text. Weakopedia (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any disparagement was intended. It's fairly clear that the consensus here is either for merge or delete, as the supporters haven't cited any WP:POLICIES to defend their arguments. As a standalone article this event lacks the notability required, merging it into it's own section within the life of a very notable man Adolf Hitler requires a lower standard. Rapier1 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm underwhelmed by the poor sources and lack of notability of the information. I don't believe the article is justified to stand on it's own, although the core relevant, notable information could probably merge into Adolf Hitler. For anyone who has made a good faith effort to make this article better, I'm not disparaging them. Hohum (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adolf Hitler. Notable enough to be in his article. Alio The Fool 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Data for the reader - It should be noted that a cursory examination of his talk page reveals User:Professional Assassin to be a Holocaust denier and general defender of the Hitlerian regime. The reader might want to take that into account when evaluating his claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my grandfather was one of the American soldiers that liberated Buchenwald, and I met his Polish friends that still had the tattoos on their arms, it's hard for me to take the rantings of Holocaust deniers seriously. That being said, he has every right to put his opinion forward, he simply has to be able to back it up with fact in order to have it stay up on Wikipedia. Rapier1 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's try to leave this as a discussion about content, and not make the decision based on the way we label editors. --Ludwigs2 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We are considering the merits of this article, not of an editor. Hohum (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is very funny, how people try to do anything, when they lack logical means to defend their ideas. "Holocaust denier" is one of those stupid labels too, which its only use is to push forward, illogical point of views.:))--Professional Assassin (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are you ready for making as AfD for Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II too? As she is far less notable than Adolf Hitler and her Golden Jubilee's ceremonies were too much smaller than those of Hitler's 50th birthday. Or is everything just political here? Serious question!--Professional Assassin (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment were Numerous landmarks, parks, buildings, and the like named in honour of the 50th birthday, were commemorative medals, stamps, and other symbols issued? Were 2,006 beacons lit in a chain throughout the world? Did 200 million people watch the event? Did 1 million people gather to see him? Please provide all of the ficures that back up you claim for the cliam for its size, and that it was bigger then the Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was not satellite television in 1939 to show the event live to 200 million people! And yes in Hitler's birthday, numerous stamps, posters, greeting cards, medals etc... issued. And yes the military parade was far far greater than those of Elizabeth's Jubilee. Just watch the videos of the event by clicking on the links from the article. Nominating such a big event for deletion is a ridiculous thing! It is really stupid how some people try to wipe out the history and disappear any sign Hitler other than those holocaust things. Hitler's 50th Birthday is far more notable than Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. If this article has to be deleted then Inauguration of Barack Obama, Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II, Queen's Official Birthday, Victoria Day and may other articles should be deleted too!--Professional Assassin (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I can't understand, how a national holiday of a country like German Reich, which was the most notable country of that time in all means, can be considered not notable, while we are having too many articles about minor things in Wikipedia.Professional Assassin (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if there was no satellite TV, (by the way the 1 million people were outside the palace, not watching on TV). So the overall birthday celebrations were not bigger then the Golden jubilee? You have taken this back to the fact it was just a military parade, and nothing more. Besides you have not provided any evidence that this was a larger parade then that of the golden jubilee. You say watch the videos, does that mean count all the men? I say provide us withy the statistics, how many members of the Nazi armed forces were involved? How many lined the streets, stop telling us it was bigger and instead prove it. Was it a national holiday, can we have a source for that? can we have a source that says that there were celebrations outside Berlin? The queens official Birthday happens every year, not just once. As does Victoria day, are you saying that Hitler’s 50th birthday is celebrated every year?Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event, and notable leader. Ask anyone who Hitler was and what Hitler did, everyone knows. Samuel Tarling (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to make useful comments at AfD, it does help you know. Fences&Windows 21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not reliable for a number of aspects of the event, the sources that were published in Nazi Germany at the time indicate the notability of the event. ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]) Most post-1945 sources are probably off-line as well, such as Der Filmbericht über Hitlers 50. Geburtstag : ein Beispiel nationalsozialistischer Selbstdarstellung und Propaganda ("The film report about Hitler's 50th birthday: an example of national-socialist self-protrayal an propaganda", in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 1959). Cs32en Talk to me 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as leader of Germany it is logical that his birthday would recive press coverage, [[18]] Bill clintons 50th birthday. What has not been demonstrated (beyond saying it) is that this is more notable then say anyone elses 50th birthday (or Stalins 60th come to that). What records does it hold?, for example. Every time it has been asked what was notable about it we are told its the bigest (but no figures are provided) or that it was Hitlers.Slatersteven (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have given are not press articles, of course. They are special issues and similar stand-alone publications about the event. Also, the links refer to the German National Library and to a network of state-owned libraries of several Bundesländer, the de:Gemeinsamer Bibliotheksverbund. Cs32en Talk to me 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which are a feature of many dictators birthdays, what needs to be demonstrated that this birthday was unique (or at least exceptional) within the wider context of the cult of personality that surrounds many despots. I also have no doubt specials are procduced for presidential birthdays.Slatersteven (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later on, the article should probably be merged into Personality cult of Adolf Hitler, which would need to be created as a sub-article of Adolf Hitler. Cs32en Talk to me 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is what this is about, the cult of persoonality. Not one day. It seems for example that his birthday was a Nazi event anyway, this particular borthday asside.Slatersteven (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Absolutely no need to address Hitler's birthday, if that was the case we might have to start making articles about each politician's birthday in the history of humankind.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partialy disagree. We would only need the birthdays of leaders around whome there was a cult of personality. Such as Stalin, Kim Il Jung, Mussolini and any god emperors (there may well be I dont know). We do have the odd one (such as the queeens offical birthday but this uis an anual event (not a one off parade) that is officaly celibrated around the world, not just in one country.Slatersteven (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the parent article. Unit Anode 23:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Adolf Hitler. --Alan (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I just removed about a half a dozen bad sources and external links (neo-nazi sites, commercial links, etc.) They're being edit warred back in by a series of IPs whom I believe to be socks of the now-banned creator of the article, User:Professional Assassin. Since he's bound to keep vandalizing the article, and since he's been community banned for being a Holocaust denier (see WP:ANI) and a Hitler worshipper, maybe the best thing to do is nuke this article entirely and let anyone who wants add relevant material to the Hitler article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Naaah, let the AfD process take its course. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment. Ironically, the referencing has improved considerably now that others are providing them. Hohum (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is hardly encyclopedic or notable as an event on its own. Whatever is useful (and properly sourced) can be merged to the main Hitler article or, as others have suggested, into an article on the cult of personality around Hitler. Beyond that, there is no need for an article like this. We can redirect the article title if by some slim chance someone will come to wikipedia looking for that. Other than that, this article just seems to be an extension of the joyous celebrations by the original (now banned) article creator. freshacconci talktalk 01:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the scale of the celebration claimed by the article is correct, this was a notable event. Merging with the Adolf Hitler article would be problematic, since that is already an very long article whose content has presumably already been carefully trimmed down by its editors. I'd be in favor of a merge with one of the secondary articles, but none of the ones I looked at them stands out as an appropriate candidate. Thus for now, my vote is keep. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Uneeded forking of content. Winston Churchill state funeral was also a notable event, but it only has a redirect page to Churchill's biography.--Darius (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Pittsburg Press ran a 7-column headline 1.500.000 Watch Parade As Nazis Celebrate Hitler's Birthday. Unfortunately, most of the relevant sources are off-line. The event is relevant beyond Hitler's personal biography, although (as I have stated above) it could be merged into an article that describes the personality cult around the Nazi leader. Cs32en Talk to me 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trim down, merge and redirect let's put the fork back in the turkey. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a sentence to the Hitler article so that if this should be closed as "Merge", a simple redirect will complete the process. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, execute the subject of the article" Hitler is evil. There are enough reliable sources for the article. Too much information to be merged with the Adolf articleJB50000 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Sure that birthday was notable--because it was Hitler's birthday, and the iformation should be included in Hitler's article. That that would make that article would be too long is not enough of an argument to keep this a separate entity. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The evidence appears to indicate that the event was significant at the time. As long as the article is factual and well-sourced, and doesn't turn into an adulatory love-fest for Hitler, it should be kept. Some information about the use made by the Nazis of public spectacle should probably be added to give some more conetxt. (And if the article is to be merged, it shouldn't go into the article on Hitler, but into one about Nazi propaganda or a related topic -- that's what makes the event historically significant, not the fact that it's about H. turning 50.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diljit Karayil

[edit]

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

Article about a doctor living in Florida. The claims of notability cannot be substantiated by the references provided (unless one wouldn't mind looking for a needle in a haystack), and Google returns nothing of substance. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:BLP. There are zero news Ghits. There is only one scholar Ghit. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim to notability doesn't seem to be verifiable. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Obvious hoax Nancy ^talk 09:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Asif bin Muhammad Iqbal

[edit]

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

It highly possibly a hoax. The 20 Hottest Young Royals does not have Asif but have Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, content seems copy from Sheikh Hamdan Matthew_hk t c 17:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax per nom. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3- despite being about an alleged Saudi prince, they left the UAE stub tag on the copy-paste article? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - hoax, vandalism, personal attack or at the very least unsourced. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lowell

[edit]

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

Unnotable "writer" of self-published serialized podcast novels Only coverage in reliable sources are his own publisher and the University organization he is associated with. The novels were finalists at a single science fiction convention's awards, and he won a blog's award. None of these, however, are major awards. As such, Mr. Lowell appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROFESSOR. The author himself appears to also agree that he is not notable.[19] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When Nathan Lowell's books are actually published will that meet the notability guidelines? I know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but his first book is due to be published later this year. If having a published book does meet the notability guidelines, then perhaps the best course of action is to delete the article and then repost it once the book has been released. If having a published book does not meet the notability guidelines, then maybe the article does need to be deleted. It would make me sad, as I am a big fan of Nathan Lowell's work, but I also do not want to let my personal opinions get in the way of Wikipedia's rules.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Simply being published does not make you notable. He must have significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Now, if his book makes him famous, gets him ton of press coverage (not just press releases, mind you), then maybe he will eventually gain some notability, however as of now, he is not notable and his book coming out will not change that in and of itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this article does not meet the guidelines, I guess it should be removed. It makes me sad, as I am a fan of Nathan Lowell. This is the first Wikipedia article that I wrote; I guess that I should have read the guidelines more thoroughly. So, if this article is removed I won't make a fuss. But don't count on it being gone forever. I have had a closer read of the notability guidelines now (something I admit I should have done sooner). I would not be at all surprised if Dr. Nathan Lowell meets the guidelines at a point not too far in the future. His work his certainly good enough. Maybe when his book is published some of the big time reviewers will write about it and that will count as a reliable third party source. One can always hope.
-- Fl1n7 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its deleted, you can also ask the deleting admin to "userfy" it, in which a copy is put in your user sandbox for you to work on over time to see if Notability can be established later. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already saved a text file with the wikitext of the article to my hard drive. I will have it ready to work on when more third party sources become available. -- Fl1n7 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines seem pretty clear on this. I can't imagine ever getting "notable" enough to qualify. I couldn't even validate my place and date of birth because they're not on a linkable record anywhere and it's not like the NY Times is gonna be knocking on my door any time soon. Thanks for the thought, but ... even I can't see it. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen of other authors articles on Wikipedia, one or two book reviews should be enough to eliminate any complaints about not having any verifiable third party sources. Those other author pages do not seem to have any complaints and they have been around for years. So it might happen. -- Fl1n7 (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite. Book reviews may offer notability on the book, but that does not offer notability on the author. Yes, many have slipped in, but when found they are eventually sent here as well and usually deleted. Keep in mind that Wikipedia has millions of articles, and only a few thousand editors, and only small percentage of those are active editors who deal with those kind of issues, versus those who edit sporadically or, like yourself, came to edit the page of someone they admire. :-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not (yet) notable, per discussion above - time for someone cast an actual !vote. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. To all the SPA supporters: sorry, boys, but read WP:MADEUP. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books (game)

[edit]

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

Non-notable made-up game. Lacks GHits, GNEWS and references. WP:MADEUP applies ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable game well known by many. if you need more references such as articles from books or personal accounts. let me know as i can get hold if these. Would this prevent deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.56.34 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.1.56.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. In spite of the above comment, quite clearly made up (by a group of sixth-form students in 2008, according to the article). EALacey (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Quite clearly made up ("Books is said to have been invented by scholars of belper sixth from center in 2008"), and if it wasn't made up one day, it wouldn't have four Facebook pages for references (which means that they all fail Wp:RS). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, yet another made-up game with no notability outside a group of friends. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: all games are 'just made up', why is it that this page has to be deleted just because it is a new game? How else do you think games like darts, snooker and card games came about? Many people love the game of books and would be devastated if this page was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.146.119 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 88.107.146.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – games like darts and snooker are well established and are played by multitudes of enthusiasts, not just a few people. BTW - to put things in bit of prospective, devastation is losing one's home in an earthquake, not having an article deleted. ttonyb (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This may be factually correct and maybe they just want to spread the word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.170.161 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 95.149.170.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Lacking notability, Wikipedia is not the venue for "spreading the word". ttonyb (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Books is not played by a few people. there are many enthusiasts. to be exact there are fifty official members and hundreds of fans and enthusiasts. Books is such a good game becasue it is easy to follow and pick up, this is what the hundreds of fans love about the sport. And yes, it is a sport at it requires pyhsical and mental endeavor. People would be very upset and tearful if this page were to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.56.34 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.1.56.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.56.34 (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.1.56.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ Books is a world renowed 3 player game' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.56.34 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.1.56.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Absolute rubbish, no it isn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - yet another game made up by bored schoolkids -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no reliable sources that could be used to establish the notability of this game. Facebook doesn't count. Deor (talk) 11:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong keep,~~ Yes it is a 'world renowed game' becasue there are people from other countries that know this game and are members. Many in england, some in america and south africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.56.34 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — 92.1.56.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are people in London, New York, Los Angeles, Helsinki and Tokyo who know me, does that make me a world renowned individual? No, of course it doesn't. And the fact that a few people in various countries may know of this game does not make it world renowned either. Oh, and please only cast one !vote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Probably more factually correct than the rest of wikipedia. I'd say 50% of this website is a load of rubbish and this page won't change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.159.187 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — 86.158.159.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Blodance (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMCS Discovery

[edit]

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

Brought to my attention by a new editor after I deleted a similar article he'd created. It's been here for over four years with no assertion of notability (and I'm not sure military reserve units are automatically notable) and no sources other than its own website. I don't see a future for it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor coverage in the Toronto Star, the Vancouver Sun, Canadian government press release, Visited by HRH Prince Phillip, Miami Herald, the CBC, and I could go on. Dozens of minor and related mentions in reliable sources produces enough to write an article about the HMCS Discovery, not to mention the book added to the article since this AfD was posted. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Naval reserve units in Canada generally have enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. In some senses, they are warships (consider their names), and warships are generally automatically notable. - Eastmain (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notability to be kept in my opinion. Could be better sourced to prove it did these notable things but other then that it is a pretty good article for it's size. --123.243.102.177 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion the sources given are enough to establish notability, and as said above warships (and this is a warship in any sense of the word) are generally considered notable at AFD. --NellieBly (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, then. It appears community consensus is overwhelming here. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 12:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of current top 40 albums (UK)

[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fact-based, yes (that was the deprodding rationale), but still unencyclopedic, given that it reports a current event and will need constant updating just to do justice to its title. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My deprodding rationale was that, as the creator, I would be updating weekly, as the charts are announced live, to keep the article relevant, and do justice to it's title. If I fall behind in keeping the article up to date, by all means, feel free to delete, at that point. But, as an avid listener to the Charts Show on Radio 1 every Sunday, I doubt this would happen. I regularly update the List of number-one albums articles on a weekly basis, and will be doing this at the same time. Keep. Loveable Daveo (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the List of number-one albums articles are kept is that they are cumulative, that is, old entries are preserved. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with that, I'm just pointing out that I regularly update that article every Sunday, and would be doing so with this article as well. Loveable Daveo (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that the article is out of date already. There was another chart on 17 January but the article is still as of 10 January. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the need or usefulness to have a article on the current top albums anywhere, it's cruft and unencyclopedic. TJ Spyke 16:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aren't there copyvio issues here? Also, the top ten is covered in 2010 in British music, where a link to the whole top 40 on the BBC site is given. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, there are copyvio issues here: at the bottom of every chart page in ChartsPlus, it says something along the lines of, "(c) The Official Charts Company 2010". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, shouldn't it be speedily deleted? I think using part of the chart, i.e. the top 10, is probably ok but not the whole top 40. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it. Holly25 (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This is news, and would be more appropriate at Wikinews. --NellieBly (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't usually do this without rationale but hey another voice :) Oh and I agree with the delete rationales above. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Becky Glupczynski

[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE . much of her producing has actually been as line producer or assistant producer and not as the lead producer. she gets very little peer recognition for her work. [20]. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with nom. Searches find nothing showing notability for this individual. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the general notability guidelines to boot. JBsupreme (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Vartanza (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Following information provided by DGG that the earlier "delete" opinions could not take into account. Sandstein 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uthman Abu Qahafa

[edit]

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suggest we get an expert in here. This guy is the grandfather of Muhammed's wife. He's the father of the first person other than Muhammed and his wife to be a Muslim... the same guy who wrote the Koran. I don't know enough about Islam to know what he means to them, but I need to hear it from an Islamic scholar that he's non-notable before I'll !vote to delete this. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-line article. We have no article about Mozes' grandfather also, so delete ASAP. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article about Moses' grandfather. As said above, this is the kind of topic that needs expert input. Holly25 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if Wikipedia has an article about Moses' grandfather. His only notability isn't that he is Moses' grandfather. Armbrust (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the apparent sparsity of information, would a merge/redirect to Abu Bakr (his son) be appropriate? --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after info from DGG and Holly25. Notable figure with sufficient information for a stub at least. I hope someone develops this into more than a list of facts and events. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Father to Abu Bakr, one of the most important and famous figures in world history as well as the history of religions; we can probably classify him as a head of state, thus making him father to a head of state , and we generally do include such close relatives. I am not qualified to search Arabic sources, but considering the understandably immense amount of scholarship on the founding of their religion, there must be a good deal of discussion. The one relevant book in GBooks, Husain, S. Athar. The Glorious Caliphate. Lucknow: Academy of Islamic Research and Publications, 1974, covers him on over a dozen pages [21]. (there are probably more under other transliterations) Another example of our cultural bias, which I am beginning to think of as cultural blindness. Given the comment on Moses, it's a blindness towards all of traditional culture. r DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I found that "abu qahafa" got better results than his full name: [22]. From the limited text showing at the search results, it looks like a number of independent references to him, going beyond a mere "he was Abu Bakr's father". One of them seems to report Mohammed expressing joy at his conversion. Holly25 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Holly. Polargeo (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Holly and DGG have shown that sources exist and there will certainly be more in Arabic. Edward321 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Polargeo's merger suggestion can be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 06:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Fuhayra

[edit]

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I need to hear from an Islamic scholar before !voting delete. This guy was one of 8 slaves freed by Abu Bakr, the man who wrote the Quran. These 8 slaves inspired several verses of the Quran. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would also like to hear from someone more knowledgeable, but perhaps it would be better to have an article under 'Eight slaves freed by Abu Bakr' or similar. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see the article on Sahaba for the significance of being one of Mohammed's companions. It is through their reports of the Prophet's sayings that the traditional legal structure of Islam was derived. There is probably a good deal more to be said, but I confess my own lack of the basic knowledge to find it. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also see the very long List of Sahaba where only the most prominant of these 'companions' are mentioned which does not include Abu Fuhayra. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abu Bakr as the redirect Slaves freed by Abu Bakr shows this is one of many. No point in separate articles with next to no information possible and no chance of expansion. Polargeo (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Polargeo's merger suggestion can be discussed on the article talk page. Sandstein 06:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Ubays

[edit]

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I need to hear from an Islamic scholar before !voting delete. This woman was one of 8 slaves freed by Abu Bakr, the man who wrote the Quran. These 8 slaves inspired several verses of the Quran. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daughter of..., sister of..., wife of... but utterly non-notable. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with Abu Fuhayra, I would also like to hear from someone more knowledgeable, but perhaps it would be better to have an article under 'Eight slaves freed by Abu Bakr' or similar. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see the article on Sahaba for the significance of being one of Mohammed's companions. It is through their reports of the Prophet's sayings that the traditional legal structure of Islam was derived. There is probably a good deal more to be said, but I confess my own lack of the basic knowledge to find it. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also see the very long List of Sahaba where only the most prominant of these 'companions' are mentioned which does not include Umm Ubays. Polargeo (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abu Bakr as the redirect Slaves freed by Abu Bakr shows this is one of many. No point in separate articles with next to no information possible and no chance of expansion. Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If its not properly sourced then we cannot even know that this isn't a hoax. Since there is clear consensus that this isn't properly referenced then the only policy based argument is delete per GNG & V but I will undelete this on the spot of someone can find some reliable sourcing and we can then merge it somewhere Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Kulthum bint Jarwila Khuzima

[edit]

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

No notability apart from relationship Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd like to hear from an expert. This woman is almost certainly notable as the wife of a very notable ruler and Islamic apostle. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daughter of..., sister of..., wife of... but utterly non-notable. The article has two lines in all... Debresser (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending more information. Possibly better to merge it. Probably irrelevant note: I cannot find her on the List of Sahaba. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see the article on Sahaba for the significance of being one of Mohammed's companions. It is through their reports of the Prophet's sayings that the traditional legal structure of Islam was derived. There is probably a good deal more to be said, but I confess my own lack of the basic knowledge to find it. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes also see the very long List of Sahaba where only the most prominant of these 'companions' are mentioned which does not include Umm Kulthum bint Jarwila Khuzima. Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article you point to says that most Sunnis regard that anyone who saw Mohammed (in a state of faith) is a Sahaba. Polargeo (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Unless significant coverage of this woman enforcing her individual notability can be found then this is a clear merge to Umar where most of this information exists already. This AfD could have been avoided with a simple redirect and merge of the limited information in this short stub. Polargeo (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could use expert attention; loads of possible spelling variants, and also what is her own name? Umm=mother bint=daughter of. Might not be much to be said about her, but it's hard to tell. That she's not listed on Wikipedia's List of Sahaba would be a silly argument in favor of deletion, if that is in fact being argued: things aren't supposed to work that way. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that this should be deleted because she is not listed. In fact I am not arguing that this should be deleted at all, I am making the case for a merge and would be happy to see the article exist as a stub should a reasonable amount of information be found on her as an individual, but it has not been found as yet. I am really highlighting the list because DGG was trying to use the fact that she is a sahaba to enforce her notability, I was merely pointing out that the creators of the list of sahaba didn't even put her on, and that it is a long list. But you are right expert attention would help. Polargeo (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact we don't really have one reliable source for her yet. I can find some web forums arguing about her existance and that is about it so far. Polargeo (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bramley

[edit]

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

Non-notable local athlete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tone 14:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As'ad ibn Zurarah

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/As'ad ibn Zurarah

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

Non-notable person from Islamic history. Only claim to notability seems to be that he was one of the 12 people selected to preach Islam after the second Aqaba pact. I do not think that this makes him notable. Unable to find any source that shows that he did anything else. Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I request the attention of an expert. This person is roughly equivalent to one of the twelve Christian Apostles, isn't he? - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think such a comparison is apt -- Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm finding sources for other events from As'ad ibn Zurarah's life that I would say suggest notability. I again agree with Richard Cavell that someone with more knowledge of Islamic studies should address this issue. --Sainge.spin (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even the material given here is sufficient for notability. The nearest comparison would be to the apostles and the early saints of the Christian church DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Beeblebrox's argument against transwiki'ing this is compelling. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ελληνική Μειονότητα Κωνσταντινούπολη

[edit]

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

See the Google translation at Talk:Ελληνική Μειονότητα Κωνσταντινούπολη. While merging has been suggested, the lead section says nothing not already found at Greeks in Turkey or Treaty of Lausanne, except for the (unsourced) figures that contradict the ones given in the others. Speedy deletion seems warranted under ((db-a10)) except that the Education section has new material. However, it's unsourced and seems faulty. Why is it mentioning Arabic-speaking Syro-Chaldeans? It leaves 135 Greeks to whom three whole high schools are devoted, which seems odd. In any event, it doesn't seem sufficiently substantiated to warrant adding it to an existing article. Hence, I move for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a good faith effort to contribute that is entirely misplaced. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the Greek Wikipedia. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Greek Wikipedia if possible; it does appear to be in good faith. As to Arabic-speaking Syro-Chaldeans in Turkey in particular? The numbers may be wrong, but it may be pointing out the Greek minority population and the Syro-Chaldean population live in the same areas. I would like to know more. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. I'm the one who suggested the merger, except that on second thought there is nothing substantial to merge. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, but change the title to el:Ελληνική μειονότητα Κωνσταντινούπολης. There is no corresponding article at el:, and the topic is not covered adequately there. Andreas ^(T) 01:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know that transwiki-ing is a more "feel good" option, but how would we take it if the Greek Wikipedia dumped an unsourced stub on us and told us it was our problem now, especially if we already had an article dealing with the subject? I'm pretty sure we would delete it as an unsourced stub that replicates an existing topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darbari family

[edit]

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

Article referred to AfD from here. Although offline sources have been given in the article, none is verifiable wrt the claims within the article - the sole author (with possible CoI) has ignored various requests to add verifiable sources. AfD requested for lack of reliable sources. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands, there's no indication where in the sources cited any particular detail comes from, which makes it equally impossible to tell if original research is involved. Trouble is, I've seen articles of this style before: with all due consideration of the risk of systemic bias, this is a very recognisable style of aggrandizing pseudohistory that rambles through sources (typically ones with anecdotal genealogy) to prove noble origins to some family or caste. And furthermore, the whole thing is just a dump of the text at these self-published pages. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per norm.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticgeek (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - I've been looking around for some online copies of some of these documents and have had some limited success. Page 126 of Chiefs and families of note in the Delhi, Jalandhar, Peshawar and Derajat divisions of the Panjab by Charles Francis Massy, which is listed as a reference in the article, seems to contain references to this family (see here, source can be downloaded as a (very large) PDF here). However, I have some concerns about some of the other sources. The Journal of Historical Research, which is listed as a reference on the article, appears to be completely unreachable on the internet (although it is mentioned on the Ranchi University website here, so we know it exists). Furthermore, The People of India, which is also listed as a reference, (viewable and downloadable here), contains only one reference to the Darbari Family, and that's in the index (here).
For these reasons, I believe this article is not a hoax, and the existance (if nothing else) of the Darbari family can probably be established. I would also note that ease of access to references does not affect verifiability (see WP:SOURCEACCESS). However, the extraordinary difficulty in finding these resources suggests, to me anyway, that the subject of this article does not meet the significant coverage criterion for notability (see WP:SIGCOV)I didn't read WP:SIGCOV properly. Accordingly, I suggest that the following action be taken: (1) The hoax template be removed from the article. (2) The article be deleted on lack of notability grounds, and not on the grounds that the subject is not verifiable. (3) This article be userfied so that if sufficent sources are found for it to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, it may be re-added to the mainspace at a later date. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. Bearing in mind that ease of access does not affect the verifiablity standard (again, see WP:SOURCEACCESS), I feel that this article contains verifiable references. Furthermore, upon a rereading of WP:GNG (I think I misunderstood WP:SIGCOV), I feel that this subject meets the notability requirements, if just barely. The article needs a lot of work, but conflicts of interest are not grounds for deletion. I am still not entirely convinced that this needs it's own article, so perhaps a merge may be appropriate, but I do not think that deletion is warranted. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 05:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it certainly needs weeding-out of all the honorifics to see whether there is actually verifiable historical continuity. Without solid genealogy, it's rather like an English article saying "King X granted Sir Y the title of Knight, therefore everyone with the surname Knight is from the noble dynasty of Sir Y". Fabulated histories are endemic in this territory, rather in the way people in the Greek city-states always managed to trace their ancestry back to their founding hero. Another problem is that there's a certain amount of unreliability to histories produced under the Raj, that fostered dynastic stories in ways that slotted the Indian caste system into the British power structure. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existence of one source which talks about a Darbari Family, is not enough at all to even qualify for basic notability criteria. I had put an AfD for this article not because of CoI, but because of lack of sources. And I maintain that unless clear reliable sources can be provided that are linked directly to claims (especially royal embellishments), the claims within the article would qualify to be hoaxes. I maintain my Delete vote. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax is defined at WP:HOAX as "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". While I think there are valid concerns about the verifiability and notability of the subject here, I think there needs to be some evidence of foul play before this can be labelled as a hoax, especially when we know the subject exists.

With regards to the one source, I appreciate that the source I linked to above does not, by itself, mean that the subject meets the significant coverage part of the notability criteria. However, the article itself lists three sources that appear to be third party sources:

Journal of historical research, Volume 33‎, (1993), Ranchi University. Dept. of History (see link in my first post)
Journal of religious studies, Volumes 19-20 By Punjabi University. Dept. of Royal Families Studies (see page 14 of this)
A.K. Warder, An Introduction to Indian Historiography (1972), Popular Prakashan.

Assuming (and I realise this may be a big assumption) that these sources do deal, in some significant way, with the Darbari Family, then this satisfies the significant coverage part of the notability requirement. These sources are not online, but I would reiterate that WP:SOURCEACCESS points out that just because a source is available only on from a University Library (for example), does not mean that it fails verifiability.

No-one can deny that this article is not particularly well written. As Gordonofcartoon pointed out above, it appears to be a text dump from here. What makes this particularly difficult is the lack of inline references, meaning that we do not know which parts have reliable sources, which parts constitute a synthesis of sources, and which parts are completely unverifiable. However, this subject appears to have significant coverage in three reliable sources, and thus at least some parts of it satisfy notability and verifiability criteria. It may, in the end, turn out that not enough of this article is cited by the three sources above, and in this case the content should be merged into another article. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as it stands, with no prejudice to recreating a correct article. The article confuses the concept of Darbari with a clan system. The term means "of the court" and was issued as a title to provincial rulers and local chieftains who had acceded to the supremacy of the Mughal empire. So in reality, there isn't a "Darbari family" but a "Darbari" title issued to people within the main empire, akin to the Peerage system, albeit, less structured and more liberal. Likewise, one of the reference provided above by User:Lear's Fool on the Darbari Jats, refers to the group that allowed their women to get married to Emperor Jahangir, so the title again reflects that they were amenable to the court of Jahangir. The article as it stands confuses and intermixes a lot of these things and is pushing a theory that is not present in individual sources. Can an article be written on the concept, yes? However, nothing except for articles, prepositions, and conjunctions can really be transferred to a new article on the Darbari system. -SpacemanSpiff 06:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pseudo-scholarship with no encyclopedic value. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries were The Penguins of Madagascar airs

[edit]

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

We have List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes and the main page The Penguins of Madagascar, which is not some tremendously popular show, but rather a simple television program, one of thousands, that does not need any more forks.

List of countries where it airs is definitely WP:NOTADIRECTORY territory, and just bad policy. If we really need to do so, there are no reliable sources that actually talk about all the countries the show airs in. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as The Penguins of Madagascar already contains it. Armbrust (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Just a duplicate of the list at The Penguins of Madagascar#International release. TJ Spyke 16:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a TV Guide and it's pretty much redundant except for two cases where it airs on the local Nick channel. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary due to the presence of this section of the TPOM article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was userfied. I've just remembered why I don't like closing these things. I feel obliged to follow the route proposed by those who argue for deletion on the basis of WP:NOR at least insofar as removing this from our article namespace is concerned. I found this very interesting, but it does seem that we are simply not the right venue for this as it is new research. I've moved the article to User:Primasz/The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location. If there are parts of this which can be incorporated into The Little Street (Vermeer), please go ahead, but I suspect that there must be some other venue where the material as a whole would be better published. After which, and if some debate has been generated, we can reinstate the article. How depressing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location

[edit]

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

Very puffy, non-neutral tone, seems redundant to existing articles, possible copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficiently "puffy". Intellectual tone too high for Wikipedia. Subject too serious.--Wetman (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely to be original research that belongs in an academic journal. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain: The reason for keeping the article is that a long-time issue has been solved now and is of interest for historians and fans of Vermeer. The issue is not found in the main articles about Vermeer and about the painting. If the text is too puffy, please let me know where to tone down. I just tried to be scientific in order not to be critized for writing unfounded facts!

The mathematical appendix can be transferred to the article about perspective in Wikipedia and a link to that can be given here. Primasz (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is really original research, it seems like a waste to give it to Wikipedia rather than publishing it in a journal first. But Primasz, you actually mention on your talkpage that "[t]he article has been published in the mean time." If that is the case, it would seem to solve the issue, as you could simply cite your own published article in the article here. --Hegvald (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The citation has been made Primasz (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - or better yet, merge into the article on the painting. Could do with a more encyclopedic style but overall a useful contribution which should not be wasted. Bryce (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wikipedia is for articles. We can fix it. In the meantime, it won't tarnish the reputation or anything. It's full of information. All it needs is to be wikified. Saeb(talkjorn) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another close call for Wikipedia's endangered high end.--Wetman (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Although this discussion has plenty of votes, there haven't been many valid arguments presented. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, there has been no good argument for deletion. Poor tone (puffiness and lack of balance) is not a reason to delete, nor is possible copyright violation. Either it is or it isn't; if it is, demonstrate it. Redundancy would be, but very little in the article appears to be found elsewhere at Wikipedia, so I have no idea how the article is supposed to be redundant. It certainly needs to be wikified, but that too is no reason to delete in the meantime. Srnec (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the material in this interesting article. For me, the only question is where. If there is evidence of previous controversy about the location, then the The Little Street of Vermeer and its Location article should stand, and should be expanded to present that. In the absence of those other views, then there is an argument for merging the current article into The Little Street (Vermeer). But either way, the material should not be deleted. AllyD (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research that apparently hasn't been published anywhere in a reliable source. If it were, a summary of the findings could be added to The Little Street (Vermeer), with the published source used as a reference; but that seems impossible as things stand. WP:OR is a core content policy for a reason. Deor (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is edited to make more clear that it is not original research. The article claims to be "based on a bi-lingual document (English and Dutch) in the Delft Municipal Archives on this topic, Nr. 55_D_29". That should be transformed into a proper citation, and the author should confirm that the article does not contain novel conclusions not found in that document. Sandstein 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Millhouse Blues band

[edit]

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

Unreferenced personal essay about a band which clearly fails to meet WP:BAND. Claims of minor coverage prevent speedy deletion but do not meet WP:GNG and are substantiated by zero Google references (except Wikipedia itself). Contains somewhat blatant advertising for a "reunion" pub gig which another editor removed, but it has returned. I42 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that they existed yet alone that they were notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried a quick clean up to see if it looks any better, but to no avail. The page was created without any editing skill by copying and pasting a page layout from another article - hence the duplicate contents section, and the unused headers. Internet searches have produced no results. The band is not notable and the article may even be a hoax.--Kudpung (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who removed the blatant promotion when this came across NewPages, and although I poked around a little bit for signs of notability and didn't find them I thought I'd let other patrollers check it out. I'm glad to know it wasn't just that my searching ability was deficient. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City wall records

[edit]

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

Record label, appears to be non-notable. Only three artists, two of which the article identifies as its managers. Can't find any reliable sources covering the label that would satisfy WP:ORG. Please note that the article appears to have been created by Ross the Red, one of the managers. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No mentions in the Google News archive. I'm disappointed that the article isn't about particularly long city walls as the title led me to expect. EALacey (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Reliable Sources and WP:GNG. The only sites I could find that mentioned them were blogs, directory sites, social networking sites, and music download sites. Nothing notable. - FaceMash (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin lawless

[edit]

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

non notable primary candidate WuhWuzDat 07:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: he could have an article, but not now. It's too early. Let's wait for the campaign period to begin. Alexius08 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't one of those tricky candidate AfDs. There is absolutely no independent coverage of this guy that I can find. As he's running in a 70:30 Democratic disctrict, that's hardly surprising. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, biospam. Running for a candidacy does not magically make you notable. This could be speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This candidate is running an unopposed primary campaign, in a contested district. It is the people's right to have information on this guy. Sagewoodrufff (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — Sagewoodrufff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's a difference between "running unopposed" and "no one else has announced their candidacy yet". Even if he wins the candidacy, notability would still be debatable, this an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Hairhorn (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear spam for a candidate with no notability in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another candidate... Probably very worthy (but as I distrust the utterances majority of political figures, I also distrust most candidates). Notable? Not by Wikipedia's criteria. Please note that it is Wikipedia's criteria that apply. (It's our ball and our field - guess by whose rules the game is played?) Free space can be found at aboutus, LinkedIn and various others like MySpace. Quote: "It is the people's right to have information on this guy." It's up to him to give it out - but this is not a free hosting site. It is an encyclopaedia. When/if he is elected, he will probably merit an article. Not before. Peridon (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Freikorp (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Heroes Museum

[edit]

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

Recently opened museum. Author has blatant COI and gives no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant WP:COI. Article makes no mention of why the museum or its collection has any notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Eddie.willers (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsalvageably tainted by conflict of interest. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've run some searches but the museum only seems to be listed on tourist directories, and it doesn't have its own website. 100% COI and blatant advertising even if it is a free, not-for-profit organisation.--Kudpung (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You Win - Fine, you win. There is only so much I can do for this museum. The local newspaper covered our museum extensively before and during it's opening. There is nothing I can do to stop the paper from deleting its own archive after 14 days. There nothing I can do to erase the reviews of the old museum from 3 years ago. I'm desparately working to get a website up on Google sites as quickly as possible. But since everyone here offers deletion instead of solutions to help this museum, carry on. There is nothing more I can do. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)American Heroes Museum[reply]
- Comment By Way of Response. Perhaps you should try and understand the aims of the Wikipedia project with regard to establishments such as this museum. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages, nor is it a tourist guide or trade directory. Anything written about here has to be capable of being verified by independent, third-party sources. Additionally, there is a threshold for notability - a thing does not warrant inclusion simply by existing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's raison d'etre and rewrite your article to satisfy the various criteria against which it will be measured. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. User:American Heroes Museum should have the modesty to desist. When the museum becomes notable, someone with no COI will write about. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There may be a problem with tone, but it's not irresolvable, especially if other editors pitch in. I don't know what this editor's relationship is to the museum, but an objective article referencing their collection could be a good addition. --Sainge.spin (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our lack of significance will not compare to your standards any time soon. The article is erased
Comment and Unblanked You can't erase it yet. (Procedural rule, and defeatism...) I've put it back - to see what it said as well. To me, it (now) doesn't look like spam. Possibly minor notability, unless outside references turn up. I haven't looked into this one's independence, but here it is: http://www.jetsettersmagazine.com/archive/jetezine/hotels/nv/laughlin/ramada/express.html Put in references to your coverage by the local press. Find some more refs - not blogs, not self-published (your Google site would only be any good as an external link, not a reference), not press releases - and put them in. Would the American Heroes have given up? Not writing an article about something you're connected with is a guideline, not a rule. Probably a third of Wikipedia would disappear if it were a rule set in stone. So long as you use a neutral tone AND REFERENCE PROPERLY, you can do it. Peridon (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It Already - What you see online is the old museum. That was closed 3 years ago. My article talked about that. No one related to the previous project wants it referenced. The close of the Ramada displays was badly-executed and an embarrasment. My article was an attempt to bring the museum into the present day. Would the American Heroes give up you ask? I am a qualified submariner from the Cold War. I didn't have to endure the poorly educated vilification of the Vietnam vets as they returned from the fighting. According to the previous contributors, we are not notable enough. With help like that, it will be a while before we are. We are a poorly funded museum of military history in a small apethetic town. Heroes, American or otherwise, never had to prove their "notability" until now. Personally, I support myself through means outside this museum. So my time and energy to absorb the steep learning curve of Wikipedian standards is limited. Someone else may make another attempt at a later date. Get it overwith. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)American Heroes Museum[reply]

You could try db-author enclosed in curly (( )) on the page - but don't blank it while AfD is in progress. Other people have edited apart from you, but their edits might be minor. db-author calls for speedy deletion by request of the only editor CSD G7. There again, someone might call a speedy end here now. Good luck with the museum, anyway. (By the way, we are all volunteers too - I'm just off to bed after a long business trip.) Peridon (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Get some rest :) --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The noble or humanitarian issues are not at stake here and the Vietnam background is unfortunately not relevant. Wiki is an encyclopdia that is edited by a community who should look up the Five Pillars before starting. It's not place for anyone to breeze in, ignore a bunch rules or guidelines, and write a one-off article about their own favourite theme. I would have put a ((rescue)) tag on it if I had though it stood a snowball's. When the museum has established itself, for example got some funding from a notable source or public money, and it has been reported in a newspaper on on the supporter's website, it will be the right time to remake this article - and then of course by an unattached third party. I already saw http://www.jetsettersmagazine.com/archive/jetezine/hotels/nv/laughlin/ramada/express.html when I was searching, and dismissed it as being a tourism directory for casinos, and not appropriate as a source.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I hadn't asked you your opinion. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the primary author: Print sources are still sources. Your newspaper's archives do not need to be online for you to use them. I appreciate that you might not have the time right now to devote to obtaining archived articles, but if you do I would encourage you to consider re-writing this article with more information. If you decide later not to re-post it to WP, it may be useful to you for other purposes, including your own site. --Sainge.spin (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added some references from reliable sources. The argument that the article is "unsalvageably tainted by conflict of interest" is invalid; Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion reminds us to "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape." I am not 100% convinced that the references are enough to establish notability, but at least the article now has references and is closer to establishing notability than when it was nominated. - Eastmain (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You I have been an avid reader of Wikipedia for years. I have learned so much about the world and people around me. But it didn't prepare me for the self-deputized enforcers of Wiki County that seem to stride around on their virtual horses looking for handle bar moustaches. Some of the late-comers to the debate have been delightfully helpful. Even encouraging. And I am convinced that, some day, this museum will be notable. If not for its content and purpose, for the people it serves. In spite of what the Wiki SA may think of my imperfect effort, my attempt to start an article was sincere. It was never close to completion. I am fully aware of that. But may I suggest to those who swing one of those Five Pillars so happily that there is a human being on the other end. Someone who may have a greater purpose than you. And that we are not always aware of your air-tight world. Thank you :) --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some day it probably will be notable; at that point, there should be an article. this can then be retrieved as a starting point--just ask me or any admin. It sometimes helps to get started writing articles by picking topics which will be unquestionably notable, like any present or past local members of the congress, or even the state legislature, that do not have articles here yet DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DDG. Good advice. Much appreciated. --AmericanHeroesMuseum (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gazookus

[edit]

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

A dictionary definition, unprodded by article creator. Should not be transwikied; the only parts that would survive in a proper Wiktionary entry are lifted verbatim from Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. —Korath (Talk) 03:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the term is notable; it exists, and that's wonderful, but that's not sufficient reason to keep the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

[edit]

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

Delete. No outside reliable, independent reference on notability: both for individual papers and the journal itself. No update on the initial unreferenced tag since 2007 Nahrizuladib (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nahrizuladib (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A quick google search brings up a lot of abstracts from various medical journals. I can't access them due to not being subscribed but it seems enough to assert notability in their field. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I'm not sure the information in the article is true. It can be redirected later to Tropical Medicine and Health if that page is ever created. Narayanese (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the NCBI Journal's database the journal changed its name in 2004 to Tropical Medicine and Health. It is the official journal of the Japanese Society of Tropical Medicine. The journal has been published since 1971. Apart from this, I have not yet been able to find any additional information, especially about indexing and such. --Crusio (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not PubMed. It's a different NCBI database. Narayanese (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and possibly merge into the article about the society if and when one is created.[23].--John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:31, 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, JForget 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is a problem here of journals that may be of note nationally in another country. This is the leading national journal in a significant field of medicine, and thus notable The circulation according to Ulrich's is 700, but the leading international journal in the subject, American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, has a circulation of only 4200. For academics according to WP:PROF, we've held consistently that notability as an a expert in a subject is judged on a world-wide basis--but administrators , etc are judged in terms of their own educational systems. By that standard, its a notable journal. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hui kit wah

[edit]

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

This person simply doesn't seem notable, and the way article is written prevents reasonable research into the person's potential actual notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article does not demonstrate notability. Jennifer500 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Jennifer500 was blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His Chinese name can be found easily on the website of the Liuhebafachuan Liu Guiyao Association mentioned in the article [24]. It's a rather common name, but searching for it in conjunction with other stuff mentioned in his article like taijiquan [25], liuhebafa [26], etc. brings up zero reliable sources about him. His closest brush with notability appears to be writing (not even being the subject of) a magazine article [27]. Other GHits are just ads for his classes on bulletin boards and the like.

Incidentally, we deleted the article about his teacher a few months ago too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lu Gui Yao. Cheers, cab (talk) 09:36, 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, JForget 03:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article doesn't cite any references. South Bay (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Corporate chambers (Estonia). Sandstein 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Co-operation

[edit]

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

This article fails the criteria set out in WP:ORG, which states that an organisation of this nature is notable if it has had significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of the article. A quick Google search throws up nothing even remotely relevant (the first listing is for the 'Chamber of Commerce and Industry' - remember, this is the 'co-operation chamber') in the first three pages of results. Therefore, the article has not received significant coverage in any source, let alone one reliable and independent of the subject! JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. I'm in no position to judge the sources found by Google News other than to note that there are three of 'em. But et:Ühistegevuskoda exists, and mentions the dates 1936-1940, which seems to make that article about something else entirely. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this AfD should deal with all the 12 similar articles created by User:Numbriga kärumees - currently some have been tagged with prod template, one is discussed here. Secondly, per WP:GOOGLE, 'Search engines cannot: Guarantee that little mentioned or unmentioned items are automatically unimportant.' All the 12 articles are about Estonian corporative insitutions mostly formed during the Era of Silence under authoritarian president Päts. There isn't much information about them in the web, even more in English, but as a whole they're probably notable as they were one of the characterizing features of Estonian economic policy at the time. They are mentioned for example in [28] and [29]. Therefore I propose to merge all 12 articles. The title should be discussed, but something like 'Corporate chambers (Estonia)' or 'Corporative chambers (Estonia)' should be ok. K731 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget though, that if an article doesn't have much coverage, it almost certainly fails the general notability guideline. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One shouldn't expect to find wide coverage (in English language and readily available in the web) of an element of Estonian economic policy in the second half of 1930s. I'm not advocating that all the articles should be kept, but instead that they could be merged into one article about the phenomenon in general. One more English language source mentioning the chambers: [30]. K731 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, we still must remember the general notability guideline. If it hasn't got significant coverage, we can't consider it to be notable. JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all twelve articles. On their own, they have no notability, but all together with an introductory text they could be a part of article series on Estonian pre-WWII government. If the merge proposition fails, delete - useless non-noteworthy stub. --Sander Säde 14:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Estonian article has several sources, and a Google Books search for the Estonian name finds more. I can't read Estonian, but it's pretty clear that this has significant coverage, this allows us to source the date of the decree establishing this chamber, this confirms the name of its chairman, this confirms the dates of its existence and this has two pages of coverage. This series of articles is about various national institutions. If they were about similar institutions in, say, Ireland would we even be considering for a moment deleting the articles or merging them into one wishy-washy general article? There's no reason why they shouldn't exist as separate stub articles which encourages the addition of encyclopedic content much more than hiding them away by merging them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact all the institution were pretty similar. I created a new article - Corporate chambers (Estonia), I hope it explains the background. K731 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with K731. Since they are all incredibly similar, there's not really a reason not to merge. In addition, we would not be 'hiding' the content of the stubs by merging the articles. If anyone navigates to say, Chamber of Co-operation, they will be redirected to a more comprehensive and notable article which avoids the need to leap from stub to stub to gain information. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my deletion nomination, however I would be willing to support a merge proposal. As Sander said, they are non-noteworthy on their own, but together they could mean something. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:55, 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, JForget 03:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above discussion about best way to handle this subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Schmidt does it again. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro and Con

[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue inprovements for this multi award-wikking animated short per available sources [31], [32], and [33]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Nice job, Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grown Up

[edit]

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

This is all that I can find for significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources [34], [35], [36]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bugoy Cariño

[edit]

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

Child television actor, no significant media coverage. Chick Bowen 17:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Just because" the subject is a child actor does not merit deletion. The subject has appeared prominently in TV dramas on ~~GMA Network~~ ABS-CBN in the Philippines, which is valid enough for notability. Starczamora (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:N + article is wholly unsourced. Irredeemable. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:15, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see "significant roles in multiple notable films"—which is not surprising, since he's only nine. Contrary to the claim above, his appearances appear to be small parts, not "prominent" roles, and a search for news or other significant coverage in reliable sources comes up with [two extremely passing mentions] and really nothing else. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Discussion has shown that the article is about a local event, and despite assertions of evidence of non-local notability citations, these have not been produced. Consensus according to our guidelines is that the article should be deleted, however the suggestion that a brief mention at UCLA would be useful is a good one, and I have done that. I will follow consensus and delete the article, though create a redirect of the tittle asa viable search term and point it to UCLA SilkTork *^YES! 11:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Marathon at UCLA

[edit]

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

Non-notable student group. While this is a good cause, not all good causes are notable enough to be encyclopedic. OCNative (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks the reliable sources to make it a proper encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the largest events of its kind. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 09:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, please define "its kind" and then provide reliable third party sources to substantiate the largest events claim. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2010 (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) 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the most this is worth one sentence in the student activities section of the UCLA article. Racepacket (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP DM at UCLA is the largest student-run philanthropic event in the western US. If this one not important, then no Dance Marathons should be important enough to be encyclopedic. But they are, and this one is especially. ViRaKhVaR321 (talk)
- Comment. I'm not sure you're making any sense. Do you have evidence of non-trivial coverage of this event by reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. LA Times: [37], just one example. ViRaKhVaR321 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment According to WP:CLUB: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." The LA Times is the local area's paper in this case. OCNative (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely meets notability criteria. It took me 15 seconds of googling to turn up more than enough non-trivial coverage.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 04:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Care to share examples of this non-trivial coverage you found in 15 seconds of Googling? OCNative (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A worthy cause, I'm sure, but not notable to the wider world. Google search turns up publicity releases and facebook stuff. Google News search turns up nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete Research shows either local coverage or social networking sites. Local isn't notable in the global arena and social networking sites per WP:Reliable Sources are seen as "Self-published sources", meaning that they are not notable. National coverage would help, but I couldn't find any. - FaceMash (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Minic

[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO. The subject's only claim to fame is being the host of Ryan's Rock Show, another article which I have brought to AfD per WP:WEB. I cannot find any reliable third-party sources providing any semi-in-depth coverage about "Ryan Minic" or "Ryan's Rock Show". In addition the article's only reference is 404. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see also my comment at [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan's Rock Show]. Again, I find passing mentions on some blogs and forum posts in connection with his show, and there's an article about him in the University of La Verne Campus Times from his freshman year. Not yet an encyclopedically notable musician or radio host under WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan's Rock Show

[edit]

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

Per WP:WEB. I cannot find any reliable third-party sources providing any semi-in-depth coverage about "Ryan Minic" or "Ryan's Rock Show". Article is extremely light on citations, reference 1 is 404, reference 2 does not even come close to supporting the article's claim, and reference 3, while it confirms the article's claim, is only a trivial mention of the show. Sure the show may have interviewed notable bands/people, but contact with notability does not grant notability. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 119 unique GHits was a lot less than I expected for a program that interviewed so many notable acts, even an online program, especially one dating way back to February 2007. I'm finding a modicum of coverage on Myspace and metal blogs; here's a brief writeup in an article database, but you can't tell where the article was from. Even for the "underground" rock world, this doesn't appear to have gained notability yet. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Glenfarclas. The important bit, there, is that the show does not appear to be notable yet. If coverage improves later on, we can always revisit the issue. For now, though, there isn't enough here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. SNOW Tone 11:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ike Jacobs

[edit]

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

I came across this page while new page patrolling. The article claims the subject, an actor, won two apparently prestigious awards called the "Artes Awards", but I can't find any relevant google hits for either "ike jacobs" or "artes awards". Since then, the article creator has added that Jacobs is the sole survivor of a plane crash. It looks like a hoax to me. Liqudluck✽talk 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:CSD G3, as a hoax. Cannot find any relevant mention whatsoever in any source. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3 "In 2004, Jacobs was involved in a plane crash in which he was the only survivor. There were 192 people aboard. He put his survival down to being in the correct part of the plane. He was seated on the wing. The plane landed in the atlantic ocean." Really? Then why isn't that listed here? Speedy this thing. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: possible hoax, no references provided. South Bay (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A ridiculous hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 06:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: his "legendary" feats cannot be proven. Alexius08 (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 11:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Dotten

[edit]

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

Whilst I did not believe that this article merited speedy deletion, the level of sourcing I was able to find (links in the references section are typical) does not suggest that this individual is notable. Jennifer500 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the level of incomprehensibility of the article is worrying (more so if it is a self-penned article), that is not a reason for deletion. I feel that the EMLRC might be more worthy of an article than one of its workers. The first results I obtained when searching for "Eric Dotten" were Facebook and LinkedIn. LinkedIn is used mostly by businesses as promotional space. A personal entry suggests to me self-promotion is a goal. I quote from LinkedIn: "When you join, you create a profile that summarizes your professional expertise and accomplishments. You can then form enduring connections by inviting trusted contacts to join LinkedIn and connect to you. Your network consists of your connections, your connections’ connections, and the people they know, linking you to a vast number of qualified professionals and experts." Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional directory. Peridon (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I congratulate Jennifer for working on the article before she concluded it was hopeless; myself, had I seen the speedy tag, I would have simply deleted it. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations seconded. Peridon (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, nominator blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to be doing quite good work, too. A bit experienced for a newcomer, but some edit as IPs for some time. My !vote doesn't change. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and per Peridon. No non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, merging can be taken care of elsewhere I guess. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southland Astronomical Society

[edit]

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

Disputed Prod. Basically a small non-notable society. The fact of being southernmost is marginally interesting, but unless that has resulted in astronomical observations of note, I don't think it confers notability (otherwise we will end up with articles on every small society in Invercargill on the basis of being southernmost). The Prod remover claimed 300+ online mentions. However, as far as I can see they are all trivial, so we have no substantial independent references, hence no basis for an article. dramatic (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Keep In addition to being southernmost (a fact that is clearly of more significance to an astronomical society than to most others), they operate the Southland Museum and Art Gallery's 30cm Cassegrain telescope, quite a decent sized instrument and responsibility for such a society. And while the proposer claims that the references are trivial "as far as [he] can see", 300+ is 300+ -Arb. (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Southland Astronomical Society Observatory, online articles have only minor mentions like dramatic says, e.g. from the ODT. The Southland Times appears to have only 2-3 years online, whereas the society has a 49 year history, there may be offline articles, like when the telescope was built. It's less than 2.5 degrees south of Mount John University Observatory, I think southernmost in NZ is fairly trivial. XLerate (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:46, 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, JForget 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Not sure why this needed relisting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Keep per Arb mostly. Merging isn't a bad choice, but there's no harm in the standalone version, and it's cleaner as a standalone article IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Debate Open

[edit]

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

I initially just tagged this for notability, but having done more research and found absolutely no independent reliable sources, I think an immediate AfD nomination is appropriate. Nothing about this university tournament suggests notability. Despite its name, it is not a national championship. It has had no news coverage, only self-promotion on debating blogs. Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No outside reliable, independent reference on notability even from primary sources. Nahrizuladib (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this event has only been held once so far with its second instance occurring later this year. I can find no coverage that can be used to establish this as a notable event. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a courtesy to the article's creator, here is a comment he has placed on the article's talk page (I've since given him the link to this AfD):

I m trying to find the sources for the first Malaysia Debate Open. Media was not invited for the first MDO, so it it is slightly hard to find newspaper articles, and so on. bt i m sure those 80 teams that participated in this tournament knows exactly how successful was this tournament( find them on blogs). The 2nd MDO will be held on a bigger scale and i m sure there will some media articles regarding this as there was an official softlaunch of the website took place on the 8th jan 2010 in Mallaca State Goverment Office.(Press were invited in this event). Articles regarding this event will be added soon. So please do not delete this article. Please consider. Thank you.

I should say that I have done a thorough search for reliable sources and can't find anything, particularly not news coverage. And Malaysian news coverage is easy to find online - most mainstream news publications have archived pages on google stretching back years. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a new reference ,a newspaper article regarding the softlauch of the event that was held on 8th January 2010). Please let me whether this is enough to save the page for the moment. I am sure there will be more resources available in coming weeks. Thank you. Ashwin26 (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE THIS DRIVEL Correctionpatrol4 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another source has been added. please refer to: http://nexus.mmu.edu.my/?p=1135/.

I think it is totally improper and rude to call an article as a drivel. Ashwin26 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Indeed it is rude to call it drivel, and furthermore, it really isn't a very valid deletion reason. I've reviewed your additional reference but a student news publication isn't sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G5 by NuclearWarfare. Non-admin closure. Swarm^Talk 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Strangers: Part II

[edit]

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

A disputed PROD; tag removed without addressing the crucial flaw, which is that films not yet in production -- as this is specifically stated not to be -- don't meet Wikipedia's future films policy (nor the general notability guideline) and contains no reliable sources. This should possibly be a redirect to the original film, as per WP:NFF, but given the article's history I thought an authoritative disposition here was best. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Strangers#Sequel: It seems that the film is gong to happen, one day. [38] [39]. IMO, you probably could have done a redirect safely to begin with. —Mike Allen 02:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's make a search for sources that might meet WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. The real title is The Strangers 2. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate or redirect I did some cleanup to the article, and in a search to see if this might meet the caveats of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG, I found

Variety 1: "Strangers' returning"

Bloody Disgusting: The Strangers 2' Director in Final Talks..."

Beyond Hollywood: "The Strangers Sequel is Official"

Variety 2: "Rogue's 'Strangers' set for sequel"

Variety 3: "Bertino no stranger to Rogue".

So it seems likely it's coming... all it took was using the right title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. See above sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of auxiliary Interstate Highways

[edit]

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

This list duplicates several articles without separate utility. The list of primary Interstate Highways already lists all of these highways directly or by way of the appropriate disambiguation pages. The entire lead above the table duplicates much of the main article on Interstate Highways. The table is bloat and takes several minutes on a broadband Internet connection to load. The lead contains several unsourced claims, and/or WP:OR. There are MOS breaches in the formatting of the prose and table. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Interstate Highways. Similar to how List of primary Interstate Highways redirects there, the auxiliary list should redirect also as all the auxiliary routes are listed there. ---Dough 48 72 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, the Auxiliary Interstate Highways are not all listed there. For example, the proposed re-direct target only has a link to I-215, three freeways exist with that name. Are you proposing to merge the lists?Dave (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could merge the auxiliary route list in with the primary route list to have all interstates listed together. ---Dough 48 72 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, the article is really trashed up, but I'm not convinced that redirecting the article will preserve the information. --Rs chen 7754 21:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete merge of the table, with no loss of (reliably sourced) information. Failing that, keep and cleanup. --Rs chen 7754 08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge I do see value in having a centralized list of Auxiliary Interstate Highways and to the best of my knowledge this list is not duplicated elsewhere. If this list is redundant to another list, by all means one should redirect to the other. I would also be OK with the re-direct Dough is proposing, provided a content merge is done first. I do agree this article is in desperate need of help. It has both formatting issues and two of the items listed under "Exceptions" are not notable, and should be pruned. (They are not unique either, several more identical situations to those exist.) Dave (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it a little more, a content merge wouldn't' be that difficult, and a merge would eliminate some redundancy.Dave (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure a merge would maintain the integrity of the information included in this list. As it stands this article includes more in depth information than the List of Interstate Highways as well as additional information that article is currently lacking such as Interstate 238. Gateman1997 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up formatting errors on the grid, on account of WP:LIST. I'm not convinced a merge and redirect would be appropriate, as it would make for an extraordinarily long article, and delete is not really the anser in my opinion on account of WP:OUTCOMES insofar as roads are concerned. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JForget 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundart Radio

[edit]

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

Community based radio station. No coverage found on Google News that would indicate that this article passes WP:NOTABILITY. Local notability only. Note this prod was contested. RP459 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Why is coverage on Google News so important? I have added links to Ofcom community radio licencing pags etc, I don't see the problem. Also why delete the list of radio shows? Bluecinder (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Licensed radio stations are automatically notable. - Eastmain (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BROADCAST says that radio stations may be notable but there is no presumption of notability. RP459 (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media As well, the article includes several newspaper references. - Eastmain (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above link says that small low power radio stations are not inherently notable which is what we are dealing with here (the station only broadcasts withing a 5km radius). The sources I saw on the article only indicate local notability as they are all from one local newspaper... RP459 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Wouldn't most radio stations be locally notable? Most radio stations that I've heard are from within my local area. They have local notability. Although I have not heard of the station myself, I can tell from this only that it has some notability. Ham tech person 02:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming - from WP:Broadcast"
Unique Programming: Soundart Radio broadcasts experimental radio artworks, is only the 2nd art radio station in the UK after Resonance fm, broadcasts sonic artworks of up to a week long, includes programmes made by children, people with disabilities, also live improvisations and experimental music. It is also part of Radia, the international network of art radio stations who share programming and air each others material on radio art festivals etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecinder (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

"Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming - from WP:Broadcast"
Unique Programming: Soundart Radio broadcasts experimental radio artworks, is only the 2nd art radio station in the UK after Resonance fm, broadcasts sonic artworks of up to a week long, includes programmes made by children, people with disabilities, also live improvisations and experimental music. It is also part of Radia, the international network of art radio stations who share programming and air each others material on radio art festivals etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecinder (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This about sums up the entire argument for me. Based on the above comment, I draw the conclusion that the station in question is notable. Ham tech person 02:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appulous

[edit]

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

Non-notable website/application TubularWorld (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this application. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://iphone.tgbus.com/news/class/201001/20100105180156.shtml http://www.macnotes.de/2009/10/26/tap-fu-fur-iphone-entwickler-stohnen-uber-raubkopien/ http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-06/24/content_8315831.htm http://www.faq-mac.com/ipodizados/comment/reply/3505 http://www.macnotes.de/2009/03/19/jailbreak-funktioniert-auch-beim-neuen-iphone-os-30/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/02/poetic-justice-watch-crackulous-released-pirated-re-sold.ars http://www.mobilen.no/wip4/piratene-inntar-iphone/d.epl?id=35566 --Vaypertrail (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the sources linked above do mention the service, they don't cover it with significant detail, and one or two aren't reliable just on first glance. Also, no other Wikipedia article even mentions this service, making it less likely to be notable. We could mention it briefly in a related article, though, if the service is as big and popular as the article says it is. Tim meh 21:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Fire Engines

[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a half hour video [40] with no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet more non-notable firetruckcruft. Eddie.willers (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is almost out of context. Notability not established. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Border Things

[edit]

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

Unnotable and unreleased book. Fails WP:BK. Sources are dubious at best and only sourcing is about its non-notable author and how he didn't end up on Survivor. Tagged for notability in December 2009. Both tag and prod removed by creator, User:Jonfoerster, without reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage of this book in anything approaching an independent reliable source. Jennifer500 (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Jennifer500 was blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article originally had more sources online; I will search for more credible sources over the next few days. In the meantime, I have edited the article to reflect only what can be currently supported. Please allow me a few days to find and add more links before deleting.jonfoerster

I've reverted your edits as they basically redid the entire article to be about Thombre rather than this purported book. He is no more notable than the book, however in either case you can't just completely refactor the article to be about another subject. Further, the sources "added" were non-reliable or had nothing about him or the book. Sources must actually support what they are being used for and not just randomly added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: jonfoerster, I'd say save what you've got and start again when there is more information available. While this is being challenged for notability a year before the book's publication date, later you may be able to find a variety of good secondary sources for a solid article. If it is likely Thombre will continue to write or has other notable achievements, it would be appropriate to start with an author page that includes information on the book. --Sainge.spin (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding a delete vote to my comment for lack of available information. --Sainge.spin (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Edward321 (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedily deleted by Malik Shabazz. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (not an admin)[reply]

Hernan Fung

[edit]

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

"Grandmaster Hernan Fung ... is Head Instructor for Fung Academy- Jodoryu International CR." Uh, so what? (It should be noted that his page on Chinese Wikipedia was speedily deleted.) Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOTE.--MaximilianT (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Speeded on the Chinese Wikipedia, so why not here? "So what?" is right... smithers - talk 01:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep Beeblebrox (talk)

Ronnie Apteker

[edit]

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

This article fails to meet WP:BIO. I find no sources in Google News or Google Books apart from an entry in a South African Who's Who. Such Who's Who books are not accepted as reliable sources as they count as self-published. Being a company director is no guarantee of encyclopaedic notability. Having been marked as needing sources for over 18 months, there seems little reason to expect the article will improve. Ash (talk) 09:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep plenty of notability to meet guidelines see for example [41] and [42]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(note) There may be some confusion in this article as the sources shown by ChildofMidnight above make no mention of film directing as per [43] currently included in the article. The IMDB entry may be factually incorrect (IMDB is created by user data entry) assuming two different Atekers are the same person.—Ash (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked into that, and I'm pretty sure it's the same person. He seems to be involved in the movie business as well. For example (and I know these may not be a reliable source) "Ronnie Apteker, the founder of Internet Solutions and a leader in the local film industry." and We’re privileged this morning to be chatting to Ronnie Apteker; entrepreneur, movie maker ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source confirming that the Internet entrepreneur and the film producer are the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I find the nomination statement, "I find no sources in Google News or Google Books apart from an entry in a South African Who's Who", difficult to understand, as the spoon fed links at the top of the article point to 112 news articles (admittedly most of them by the subject rather than about him) and 10 books. The news results inlude the Wired article that I linked above and the book results these three books. These seem to just about get the subject over the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book mentions are extremely trivial. This guy is in the business of promotion. He needs more than a few throwaway sentences in minor books to meet notability. Miami33139 (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's definitely independent coverage about him, like the Wired (magazine) article given above. I'm not familiar with ZA sources, but there are probably more reliable sources among all those news links. Pcap ping 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Callet

[edit]

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

Unremarkable music teacher and author. Also, this article is too old. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. How has this article remained for 8 years when it is speediable? Reads almost as WP:VSCA but I don't think it is vanity. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - okay, I've looked through this guy's work and it seems that he has had a profound influence on professional-level trumpet playing. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some sources to the article. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that is enough for notability, but I must say that this is nowhere near such an obvious deletion candidate as the people commenting above are saying, and what on earth is "this article is too old" supposed to mean? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see quite a few hits in Google Books, one of which calls him 'well-known'. Older material wouldn't be online, suggesting that that's the tip of the iceberg. --Gwern (contribs) 18:13 12 January 2010 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added 5 publications by him. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mazoku

[edit]

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

Non-notability (see talk page discussion). Recommend merging of specific sections pertaining to Slayers and YuYu Hakusho into those two articles or their satellites. — flamingspinach | (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but move non-fictional part to wiktionary apart from the hardly sourcable fictional usage, the rest of the article is only a dictionary entry. I see no point in keeping the article since wikipedia is not for dictionary terms. Or redirect to Slayers just in case someone recreate the article.(I'd say the Slayers entry have more usage) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sounds good. Move to wikt:魔族, and perhaps wikt:まぞく and/or wikt:mazoku though those are probably peripheral. — flamingspinach | (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very common term in Japanese fantasy writing -- and games. It might be a challenge to source, but I don't think the term is inherently less notable than 'orc' or the like. I'd prefer to see the fictional OR stuff stripped out, and the historical notes tagged for citations, see if it's possible to find some. Doceirias (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The problem here is if the term itself have a lot of usage in English. I am sure that you can source a lot of Japanese sources, but a lot of the notable and/or significant ones will have their own original English term or translation.(For example, if a Japanese version translated Elf to Mazoku, and it is obviously not coverable by this article.) The term is not inherently less notable than orc, but if it is just going to be a dictionary term, leave it for wiktionary. I don't know if it is possible or not, but just redirect the page to wiktionary if need be. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. This article is about the CONCEPT of Mazoku, not the DEFINITION of Mazoku. Therefore Japanese sources should also make it notable. VDZ (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have moved the Slayers content to List of Slayers characters in case anyone wants to fix and retool the page to be of more benefit.Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Demons/Mazoku are very common in many series. Some notable series even call them that. Listing briefly notable series that have them, with a short description of what they are in that series, would be great. We could have List of notable fiction that features Mazoku if the list ever got too long... Hmm... this is an EXTREMELY common thing though. Isn't there a list somewhere listing things commonly found in Japanese Anime and Manga? I think showing how many historical/religious documents in Japan talk about them, or feature them in stories, is important to understand things. Isn't this part of Shinto religion, they having Mazoku/demons/spirits/whatever in it? Dream Focus 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a part of Shinto. It's simply a Japanese term that was invented to translate concepts from other cultures. Ironically, when Japanese works using this word in a fictional context are translated to English, since the word was no longer being used as a reference to any particular real-life concept, it was just romanized and used as-is. So this word has basically never had any direct usage outside of fiction anyway. At least, that's what I gathered from the Japanese article. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:08, 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, JForget 00:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to merge, the entire article is unsourced, pure, uncut original research. JBsupreme (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think there's probably enough information on the subject in Japanese sources. We need someone who can read Japanese to establish notability for this. VDZ (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've written up a direct translation of ja:魔族, the corresponding Japanese article, here. Feel free to merge bits of into the article. I'd just replace the whole thing, but conflict of interest and all that. — flamingspinach | (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason your translation does not attribute any reliable sources? I appreciate the hard work you have done, but we still should not be substituting one problem for another. JBsupreme (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source is Wikipedia. VDZ (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 07:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - The reason there are no references is that I directly translated ja:魔族, and that article has no references either. Perhaps that article needs to be AfD'd as well, but that's for a different discussion. User:Mythsearcher is correct - I am not trying to cite ja:魔族 as a source, but rather am just presenting a translation of it in order to assist restructuring and redevelopment of mazoku. I do not pretend to be providing references or proving notability in any way. In fact, I don't believe this topic is notable, but rather that it is a WP:DICDEF. — flamingspinach | (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is fair enough, thank you flamingspinach. JBsupreme (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not being harsh here, if one look into the matter, I was the one writting all those unrefed stuff in this particular article to begin with, from the original article where it only mentioned the two fictional entries. I am essentially proposing to ditch most of my own work to begin with. The only problem right now is that I am sure there will not be sufficient sources in English nor Japanese to support the inclusion of this article. Most of the source will be dictionary entries and thus I proposed moving this to wiktionary, which is the dictionary equivalent of wikipedia. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary per above or Keep. No use in dragging this AfD on for another week. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shumake

[edit]

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

This article fails to address the notability requirements. I get no appropriate matches in Google News apart from press releases and derivatives so it is unlikely that notability will be addressed in the near future and the current references are not suitably independent. His book shows Amazon.com Sales Rank: #3,963,496 which means the book has virtually no sales and appears to be a vanity press publication. Ash (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AfD template was recently deleted and the content revised by the creator of the article Robert Shumake (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I have marked this as a ((copyvio)) and added back the AfD template. This SPA appears to have conflict of interest and does not meet the wp:username policy, particularly as the nature of the edits are entirely negative for Shumake.—Ash (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor added a cite and the content of this article [44], which does seem to indicate this figure me be notable and controversial. It's also a bit curious because the editor that added the info had the username of the article subject, but it seems unlikely that Mr. Shumake would be adding derogatory information about himself. I'm not so sure it's a delete, but it would need to be carefully watched and might fall under the BLP 1E guideline. Although I think the controversy looks notable and I've read quite a bit about payoffs fo pension investments, which seems to be the issue concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may set themselves up with the name of someone else in order to attack that person, this might be what happened here. I suggest if further discussion on this point is needed it may be better on the user or article pages in question.—Ash (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The expanded version was a blatant copyvio. I restored the article to a previous state since G12 speedy deletion is only appropriate when there is no such version to fall back to. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided in slightly negative BLP. Miami33139 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The main thing that I can find is press releases. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster Run

[edit]

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

There is only one substantive article about the Oyster Run, published in 2002 in the Seattle PI. Other than the claim as the largest motorcycle rally in the Pacific Northwest, the article does not give any reason to think this event is different from hundreds of other small scale motorcycle rallies around the country. I also found routine notices in The Seattle Times and The Herald (Everett) warning drivers of some increased traffic due to the Oyster Run. Most of the events in Category:Motorcycle rallies in the United States draw several tens to hundreds of thousands of people every year, not just ~~6 to 7 thousand~~ 15 to 20 thousand (see below). Dbratland (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple other articles dealing with Oyster Run ([45] & [46]), but neither of these are substantive. Lack of significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article says ~20k ran it last year, not the 6-7k you mentioned, dbratland. I'm on the fence about this one, perhaps because it's one of the few I've actually heard about. tedder (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I was looking at the 2002 Seattle PI story; you're right the 2008 goskagit.com story [47] does say 15,000 to 20,000. I still think it lacks distinctiveness -- I would rather see a broader article that covers the entire phenomenon of second and third tier motorcycle rallies around the world, rather than focusing on one with little to distinguish it. But I could understand if there was support to keep it based on the size and being (perhaps) the largest in the Pacific Northwest region. --Dbratland (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major event with thousands of participants every year that has been going on for more than two decades and has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A regular event that attracts so many people has to be sufficiently notable. Google News has enough to satisfy any concerns over coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TLDR follows. It took me some time to decide on this- see my comment from a week ago (above). Here's the thing. This article isn't ever going to be a featured article- the number and depth of WP:RS's about it are minimal. So, at best, this is going to be a borderline case of notability. So, because there are only a handful of active folks in Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling, it's probably up to us to use our gut 'feel' of notability for this, since it isn't an obvious 'keep' or 'delete'. While most of the rallies that have come up for deletion recently are an obvious delete, this is one of the rallies that fits into a second tier behind the Daytona and Sturgis type rallies. There's enough coverage to give the entry the benefit of the doubt when it comes to notability- especially when the Oregon Department of Transportation puts up signboards related to the event about 365 miles south of the event itself. tedder (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judith M. Gueron

[edit]

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

This article fails to address the notability requirements. Being on the Board of Directors of Alcoa does not impart encyclopedic notability. Searching on Google News provides mentions of her appointment but no articles that appear to demonstrate notability for anything else. When there are then they may be a rationale for creating a biography but at the moment any mention of Gueron can be merged into the company article. Ash (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is probable that someone who is on the BOD of both Alcoa and National Bureau of Economic Research is notable as a economist;. I think she does meet WP:PROF: her principal book, From welfare to work is cited 434 times in G Scholar . She is senior author, it was published by a major specialized publisher, and the book is in 536 worldcat libraries. There are also quite a few discussions of her studies in G News Archive [48] and in Google (see above). The references are discussing her as an expert in the analysis of that important practical program. . DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone is willing to make it into an encyclopedic stub otherwise delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lack of sources when there are sources available means the article should be fixed, not deleted. --Sainge.spin (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing here worth retaining. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive Gnews and Gbooks hits verifying stature in field as recognized authority as well as demonstrating coverage meeting GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer Brooks

[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for a college basketball player that, according to the article, spent a lot of time on the bench. Gigs (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 Google news hit, might not even be him. Doesn't seem to come close to passing WP:ATHLETE. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he goes pro and plays, he'll pass WP:ATHLETE. Just not right now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dishank Arora

[edit]

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

fails WP:ENTERTAINER, as an entertainer with only one major role. There are references for him, yes, but most are Indian gossip/news forums, which aren't appropriate for a BLP. Ironholds (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate without prejudice toward return per Thaindian, Real Bollywood, Telly Chakkar, et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given sources above, I'd say keep and wikify. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are bollywood gossip and rumour sites. That isn't good enough for a BLP. Ironholds (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think that the sources given above are not completely irrelevant, I don't think that the subject currently has sufficient notability to be featured in a separate article, because of the quality of the given sources (although it's probably enough for inclusion in Love Ne Milla Di Jodi). If the article had much information about him, I would consider an incubate or merge, but all that is really there now is about his character, and his place of birth. If/when enough sources can be found for him to be considered notable, then the article should be recreated in a form nothing like it is now. Jhbuk (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Time for our biannual deletion debate. The page is still almost exactly the same as when it was first created.

This page can be split up into four sections:

The introduction
Gentleman and the Bull Dog
Brummy and the Bulldog
East End Club

The latter three sections are only about individual examples of human baiting, not about human baiting itself; it does give a rough idea of what human baiting is like (although in a very indirect, unencyclopedic, anecdotical way, and no assertion or proof that human baiting in general is like that), but fails to provide any other information, such as

When and where did people practice the sport of human-baiting?
How frequent was human-baiting?
What were people's views on human-baiting?

Et cetera, et cetera; there is no encyclopedic content about human-baiting in those sections, only some trivial encyclopedic content about those individual cases of human-baiting.

This leaves us with only the intro, which is exactly one sentence long: "Human-baiting is a blood sport involving the baiting of humans." Not only is this not enough for a complete article, it is also a disputed statement, as was made very obvious in the previous two AfDs; we have exactly three confirmed counts of human-baiting, but I have yet to see a source saying it was an actual blood sport rather than just an unusual variant of dog fighting.
The three individual stories are perhaps encyclopedic but wouldn't meet the notability guidelines for individual articles. This article is not about human-baiting at all (save for one sentence), and should therefore not be on Wikipedia. Normally, such an article would have to be rewritten, but there have been calls for that for almost four years now, so I don't see it happening anytime soon. VDZ (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, rather than having the article deleted, I'd like to see the article userfied, as the original creator seems to be very attached to this article (to the point of meatpuppeting at the previous AfDs), and the subject is indeed encyclopedic - the article itself is just extremely lacking. I say it should be userfied and the creator can put it back on the article namespace when it is a proper article - but until then, it shouldn't be here. VDZ (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I would tend to agree with VDZ, in that the subject is worthy of an article but this article is not worthy of inclusion - for reasons spelled out. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strange things can happen three or four times in history without needing an encyclopedia article to cover the possiblity. Racepacket (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth coverage, no evidence to suggest this is a noteworthy phenomenon that occurs or occurred with any regularity. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. As stated before, the subject is notable enough, but the article itself just doesn't hit the mark well enough. Miyagawa (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have over 3 million articles and 99% of them are of less than good quality. We keep them in mainspace because this is our editing policy - readers will find them there and hopefully improve them. The suggestion that fights between humans and animals are historically rare is quite mistaken - please see Bestiarii for another article of a similar sort. Repeated nomination of this article in the hopes of getting a different result may be considered disruptive. Wikipedia has no deadline and notable sourced material should be retained per our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Colonel Warden. Quality is not a reason for deletion. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Quality is not a reason for deletion (says Wikipedia, personally I disagree, but it's not something I can decide), but
  - Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  - Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

are reasons for deletion according to Wikipedia's deletion policy. There is indeed no deadline, and therefore a new article on this subject would be welcome at any time in the future. However, at the current moment, and for the past four years, this article has been an eyesore that should not be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and an article consisting of only three non-notable news stories is not an article that belongs on Wikipedia. The reason I renominated this article again is that the reason it was kept in the past was that it would be improved in the future. It doesn't seem like this is happening anytime soon, so I'd rather not have this article on Wikipedia until it becomes a proper article. 99% of Wikipedia articles being less than good quality is not a valid excuse for an article being of low quality. Furthermore, I can assure you that at least 90% of Wikipedia articles are of a better quality than this article (because, well, most of the articles are actually about their subject matter). Unless you can give multiple reliable sources on human-baiting itself, not about individual cases of human-baiting, human-baiting cannot be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. VDZ (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOEFFORT which explains that this is a weak argument for deletion. There seems to be no discussion by yourself of the article's problems on the article's talk page and so your own efforts are inadequate to meet our deletion policy. And the article already contains sources which meet your objection. A Complete History of Fighting Dogs has a chapter entitled Man versus fighting dog. The History of Fighting Dogs has a chapter entitled Fights against Man. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to be able to find anything about the content of The History of Fighting Dogs, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that point, but the Man versus fighting dog section of A Complete History of Fighting Dogs is about the "Brummy and the Bulldog" story, and is mostly just copypasta from the original story. WP:NOEFFORT is nice, but it doesn't make an unnotable article notable. As for my efforts to the article, I placed a cleanup-rewrite tag on the page (which was immediately reverted by a sockpuppet of the original author without me noticing), and placed it back on the page some time later when I noticed it had been removed. The article's problems should be pretty obvious seeing how it was tagged multiple times by multiple people(although it was reverted each time by a sockpuppet of the original author) and the fact that it's been nominated for deletion twice. This just isn't a Wikipedia article. VDZ (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you are not fully familiar with the sources and have made no attempt to discuss them at the article, your efforts do not satisfy the requirements of WP:BEFORE, especially as the consensus of two previous discussions has been to Keep the article. This just isn't a satisfactory nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what requirement of WP:BEFORE I don't satisfy. I don't think you can blame me for not reading an expensive out-of-print book; that's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as I can't check it so I can't disprove it. However, even with that, the article fails to meet the notability criteria. Also, ad hominem. Even if I would not have properly proposed it for deletion, my arguments still stand. I see you've added a rescue tag. There's five days left until the AfD closes; the article will have to be in a good enough state to not be deleted at that time. VDZ (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination violates item 7 in particular, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors." Colonel Warden (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article's talk page and the previous two AfDs. There is already discussion on the talk page (in fact, the entire talk page is about the issue I'm concerned with: the article isn't about human-baiting at all). I didn't start another discussion as there are already 3 discussions. My objections haven't been dealt with. Also, good job removing all of the tags asking for improvement. I do not think the article will survive the AfD in its current state. VDZ (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd ~vote userify if the user in question wasn't banned. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news finds one relevant article about it [49]. This apparently happened quite a lot back in the days. Several historical publications about it are listed in the article. It certain has had enough coverage over the years. Does anyone sincere doubt this is a real thing that happened once? Dream Focus 03:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is again about the "Brummy and the Bulldog" story, and not about human-baiting in general. Maybe it happened often in the past, but Wikipedia:Verifiability requires us to have sources to back up that claim. On a more positive note, with the sources presented in this AfD, we can probably get a new article for Brummy and the Bulldog. We still have only (at most) one source for human-baiting as a blood sport. (And to answer your question; if it only happened once, that instance of it happening should get an article, not 'human-baiting'.) VDZ (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They passed laws against it in some areas, so its surely was a common problem. And the article list three notable examples of it. No sense having an article for each one of them. And when I said once, I meant, once upon a time. Dream Focus 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem here is that each of the examples only illustrates the individual cases, as if they were just random bizarre events, not a common event. Because there are only sources for the individual cases, WP:N says human-baiting in general is not notable enough to get an article, and WP:V says we can't write stuff about human-baiting in general as we have no sources about it. Therefore we can't have an article about human-baiting in general. VDZ (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no requirement that we cover topics "in general". Our job is to summarise secondary sources. If these sources choose to report the matter in this way then so it goes. Notability is established by this coverage and Dream Focus' finding that other sources report the same details confirms this notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It confirms the notability of the specific occurrence of human-baiting, not the practice of human-baiting itself. It's the same as how the notability of a video game does not automatically make its developer notable. VDZ (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The occurrences, the practice, the sources and our article are the same. The article does not make any claims for generality and nor should it if these fights were exceptional at that time. It is their exceptional nature which makes them especially notable just as other unusual events attract notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Article certainly has issues, but this is a legitimate subject for an article. Jack Merridew 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Userfy). This article lists three cases of 'human-baiting', but contains nothing about the phenomenon itself - probably because it hasn't received any attention in reliable sources. Indeed, even the phrase 'human-baiting' appears to be a neologism invented for this article; I can't find it in any reliable sources elsewhere. Unless there are sources about the phenomenon itself, it must be considered non-notable and deleted. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Merridew. The lead should just summarize the three sections below, and nothing more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source that talks about Brummy.[50] Apparently that fight began the end of baiting in England. I'm not sure that "Human-baiting" is the correct title. That makes it sound more like a sport than it really was, since it was so rare (though still notable). Maybe Organized human vs. dog fighting or something else ponderous but descriptive. Then the lead can be "Three instances of man vs. dog fights have been reported on, one of which led to changes in laws." or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This is the standard advice in such cases - to use a descriptive phrase in plain English. Retitling an article for clarity does not require deletion - just a move, which any editor may perform. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not any evidence to suggest this is a noteworthy phenomenon which has occurred with any regularity. Hopefully we won't have to hold a fourth deletion discussion on this one. JBsupreme (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regularity is an argument to avoid. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and so contains articles about irregular events as well as regular ones. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Link does not seem to have anything to do with anything discussed just now. Care to elaborate? VDZ (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JBsupreme's objection is that such events did not occur regularly. This irrelevant because Wikipedia covers numerous singular or irregular events. The supposition that a topic requires a certain scale before it may be covered here is a common fallacy which we know as WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Clear? Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's subject is a real thing, and mentioned in enough reliable sources to be proven as such. Google scholar reveals the term being used http://k9.fgcu.edu/articles/LillyPuckett.pdf "Just as their instinctual heritage has been programmed to fight other animals, it has been manipulated and applied toward forms of human baiting." Social Control and Dogs: A Sociohistorical Analysis by J. Robert Lilly and Michael B. Puckett. Can't find anything else with Google Scholar that isn't about mosquitoes. There are 13 articles about baiting Animal-baiting#Baiting_sports. Not a lot of old news sources out there to be found on the internet, but surely this was a common thing at various times and places throughout history. The Romans weren't the only ones that had people fighting animals for sport. Dream Focus 19:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've only just seen this. I will investigate further. While the article may be in a poor state now, this will not always be so. Take a look at Ferret legging, which User:Malleus Fatuorum deftly improved, or Wife selling, on which we both worked. Both obscure rituals, both now with worthy articles. Parrot of Doom 20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- pages 64 and 292 - use of men in the training of Bulldogs. Doubtless there is more out there. Parrot of Doom 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we relist this so that Parrot of Doom can get the time to improve the page? Today should be the closing date for the AfD, but it seems somebody finally stepped up to improve the article. VDZ (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't bother. I'll continue to work on it but not to a deadline. It'll either survive on its own, or be merged into Dog baiting. Parrot of Doom 11:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden and Dream Focus. There is a point at which our personal bureaucratic/deletionist tendencies become harmful to the Foundation's vision statement. This is a good example. Ingersollian (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. but rename and rework to be about the company Mime Radio not the person. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damon de Szegheo

[edit]

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

The prod was contested. I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage of him. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rework as an article on The Mime Radio Recording Company which recorded numerous notable artists. This gentleman can be covered there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting the creation of The Mime Radio Recording Company and making Damon de Szegheo a redirect to there? Jujutacular ^T · C 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More like a merge. The content in this article is appropriate for an article on the broader subject of the record company rather than in its present form about the chief executive. The company is notable, the executive not so much (in so far as I can tell). I'm willing to do it boldly, but sometimes have objected to that approach, so I'll let the discussion proceed first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. Amalthea 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Kanesha Palmer

[edit]

once closed the related images should also be got rid of, if they are still here.

File:Jordan Kanesha Palmer 0 0 0x0 400x605.jpg
File:Rhyon nicole brown 0 0 0x0 400x605.jpg
File:200px-Jordan Palmer - Number One.jpg
File:200px-Jordan NumberOne Cover.jpg
File:200px-JordanPalmer-LilMissSwaggerSingle.jpg

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

An elaborate hoax. Pretty obvious, once you look behind the surface. None of the references check out, imdb links or review links lead to completely different pages, album cover of Number One (Jordan Palmer album) is actually Britney Spears's "... baby one more time" inverted and mirrored, and so on.
Blatant hoax, actually, but I'd welcome some more research into how far this goes, I don't want to just speedy them and move along.
Amalthea 00:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I figured this wasn't new: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Palmer (actress). I'll probably get rid of this myself then, if this has been discussed before. Amalthea 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Deleted under WP:CSD#G3 as blatant hoax. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biloxi Steamers Baseball

[edit]

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

The article provides no references. A Web search didn't find anything except Wikipedia mirrors. The team doesn't appear in several standard books I checked on Negro league baseball. The editor who created the article has a history of vandalism in the handful of other articles that he/she has edited. Bottom line, although I'd love to be proved wrong, I suspect this article may be a hoax. BRMo (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —BRMo (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Delete: I edited article to reflect that this team never existed. A passing admin can delete. Too bad this stuck around for so long, but no one believed it, I suspect.--Milowent (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I declined speedy deletion because the article doesn't satisfy A7. It asserts the importance of the Steamers: "one of the greatest teams in baseball history winning 448 games of 551 in the teams years of existence". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing the discussion here and reviewing the (lack of) sources on Google Books and Google, I deleted it as a blatant hoax. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Live 2010 (album)

[edit]

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

Part of a series of articles relating to Jose Rodrigo Arango. This article relates to a "soundtrack" album for a live tour said to be due to take place in 2010. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. It hasn't happened yet. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Added CSD to article. Artist no longer has an article on Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working class education

[edit]

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

Nominating instead of proding this article in order to get outside input. I question the appropriateness of an article of this nature. It has strong POV issues and demonstrates Card stacking. Multiple claims are stated as fact which are merely the conclusions of the works cited (practically opinions). These conclusions appear to be based on weak evidence (Causal fallacy). It reads closer to an essay than an encyclopedia article. It presents an implicit US-centric view. I strongly suspect that there is WP:OR present, in terms of the interpretation of the sources, but I can't be certain without reading them.

I don't believe that the topic itself is inappropriate; merely any form of this article (WP:RUBBISH). I did what I could to remove the WP:PEACOCK terms, but I cannot see any reasonable way to resolve the above issues and retain much any of this article. Verdatum (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failure to meet the WP:OR standard of WP:DUCK. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be worked into a criticism section of an article on public education. The title of the article presupposes the distinction between working class education and non-working class education. This discussion could also be incorporated into articles covering education in various nations and cultures. I sense that this essay is United States centered. Racepacket (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BEFORE, not complete crap. See Outliers (book) that has looked at this topic. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There has been no proper attempt to engage with the topic - the article doesn't even have a talk page. A perfunctory search immediately shows that there are hundreds of books about this topic which therefore has massive notability. A class-based approach to education is still a live issue in the UK and so there are many more sources to come. The nomination therefore fails our deletion policy and should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't bother to start a discussion on the talkpage because I examined the edit history; the bulk of the article was created by a single-purpose account that hasn't been active in over a year; most other edits were related to style or upkeep. Again, I'm not arguing the notability of the topic. I'm arguing the article's appropriateness of style and salvageability. Even with WP:IMPERFECT in mind, I don't see any way to salvage any of the existing text, and I believe doing so would be more difficult than writing a new article from scratch. I have no strong objection to stubbing the article. But because of the topic's sub-article nature, I couldn't think of any useful way to do that. "Working class education refers to the education of children of working class socioeconomic standing" just felt uninformative and irritating to readers who had been linked there; not that "what links here" points to very much. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple way of attracting relevant editors to an article is to place relevant project templates on its talk page. I have made a start. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak Merge - article appears to have been created from whole cloth by a single single-purpose account. It is a one-sided discussion of the issue and highly US-centric. The effort would have been better-spent working on Education in the United States article. could perhaps be reworked as a subsection of that article? RayBarker (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the article has been "created from whole-cloth" is obviously false as the article contains several citations to good sources. Its focus upon the USA is not a reason to delete; rather it is a reason to add additional material or, failing that, to tag and discuss the matter at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider a merge to Achievement gap in the United States. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]