< 27 January	29 January >

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

The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is AES encryption crackable[edit]

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

This is an essay, original research, and subjective. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus of uninvolved wikipedians - andy's 6 points not refuted Scott Mac (Doc) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephano Sabetti[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. The only thing I can find about him is in Google Books, a real brief note on (not a review of) one of his books. Nothing in Google News, and nothing of note on the internets either. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Leave the Article A simple Google search on Stèphano Sabetti turned up 23,600 results today (Feb. 3), including books, video lectures and more. Sabetti has in this person's opinion made a significant contribution to the branch of body psychotherapy influenced by Wilhelm Reich's and Alexander Lowen's research. As a spiritual figure, Sabetti has presented perspectives on primarily Eastern philosophy and spirituality that is difficult to find elsewhere. Definitely worth keeping as an introductoy article for others interested in these fields. Elel195 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Elel195.[reply]

Delete as spam. andy (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Leave the Article

The suggestion for deletion claims Sabetti isn't notable. I will attempt to address this comments with the following:

1. Sabetti has nine books published, eight of which are available on Amazon.com U.S., Germany , Canada, France and Japan,as well as two books published in Brazil.

Two books have been commercially published in Germany:

Lebensenergie(The Wholeness Principle) Hamburg: Scherz Verlag 1985 and Rororo Verlag 1987 and

Rhythmen des Wandels (Waves of Change) Munchen: Hugendubel Verlag 1992

Two again published by commercial presses in Portugese:

Ondas de Transformacao(Waves of Change) Sao Paolo: Summus Editorial 1995 and

Principio da Totalidada(Wholeness Principle) Sao Paolo: Summus Editorial 1991 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LEMspare (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. I've included the following secondary sources that critique/address his work. The problem is that they all occurred before the Internet , and in reaching the publications, where appropriate, was told older articles were not archived to digitization for the Internet. As you can see, he has articles, TV and radio interviews, etc,. about his work.

"Achieving Resonance,” Reuben, Carolyn, In: LA Weekly, August 28, 1987.

"Heilung Durch Kommunikation" (Healing Through Communication)Sabetti, Stephano, In Heilung aus der Mitte(Healing From the Center), Devillard, Anne Zwickau, Germany: Driediger Verlag, 2009 --LEMspare (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Life Energy for the Whole Organization” (Livsenergi For Att Hela Organisationen), In: Swedish Economist, June 7, 1986.

“Management Nach Dem Vorbild Der Natur,” (Management Based On a Model of Nature) In: Süddeutsche Zeitung, (South German News) July 29, 1989.

“New Age,” Discussion of Life Energy Therapy In: Talk (Norwegian bi-monthly), February/March, 1988.

“Professor Teaches Us a Holistic View of What’s Within the Self” (Gammal Klopskap For Manniskan Hel), In: Dagens Nyhter (Stockholm daily), November 25, 1986.

"The Spirited Soul," (Die Seele Begeistern) Discussion of Life Energy Therapy In: Tanz Aktuell, March, 1992.

“The Wholeness Principle,” Preit, Robert (moderator), KGIL Los Angeles Radio Interview with Sabetti, September 9, 1987.

"The Wholeness Principle, Life Energy, and AIDS," Tremaglio, Melinda, (moderator) Television Interview for Lifestyle Update Los Angeles with Sabetti, August 14, 1997.

“Time Sensing,” In: Madame May, 1991. “Wholeness and Health,” Green, Richard (moderator) KFOX Los Angeles Radio Interview with Sabetti, December 15, 1987. “Wholeness Is a Necessity in Our Society,” In: Whole Life Monthly, August

3. He currently has seven You Tube clips from lectures available and 23,700 items under Google search.

4. I addressed this issue with at least two other administators already. I did not include in the article his books as references because I was told it hyped the books too much and would appear as an infomercial if I cited them. Therefore I only included two externsal links to associations with whom he is affiliated.

5. In perusing the list of American Spiritual Writers, I can't help but notice the lack of consistent strict adherence with respect to Wikipedia notability policy e.g., some articles have NO references. This seems both inconsistent and I can't help but feel this is unfairly punitive in the Sabetti article case.

6. References to Sabetti sometimes appear under the subject matter. For example, one article relating to new organizational paradigms: Does God Have a Big Toe? http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/quantum-ebook.pdf mentions Sabetti's Wholearchy as a new organizational model as well Tom Peters and Rosbeth Moss Kantor, two noted organization gurus.In another example, Sabetti was the progenitor of Quantum Evolution Congress, which had notables like Meg Wheatley (org. behavior),Amit Goswami and Bill Tiller (both physics pioneers) on the roster.

7. With respect to spam, links to other material, including his books, were excluded. I included only two external links,which I'd be happy to remove, though he started several institutes in Europe and believe I satisfied the administrator Fughettaboutit on this count.

7. Finally, I would be willing to make any further adjustments deemed important.I don't feel it's necessary or merited that the article is deleted because he isn't a best-seller or the fact that he has spent most of his career working in Europe means that his U.S. press and other media exposure is limited primarily to the 1980's, when he spent more time in the States.

I thank you for your attention and utmost consideration--LEMspare (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

1. The cited works do not seem to be academically rigorous or in any other way meet the requirements of WP:RS, and some are clearly just PR centres.

3. YouTube is not a reliable source

4. I am sure that you were told that the article must contain reliable sources if it is to be retained. The author's own works clearly don't count in this respect.

5. Inconsistency with respect to other articles isn't grounds for keeping an article that fails to meet WP guidelines.

6. This doesn't address notability as per WP policy. The link is to a self-published fringe site - again, not a reliable source.

andy (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy, I've Made Changes

Thanks for your suggestions. I've removed the Press Bureau articles and I've included the commercial press publications in Germany and Portugal of Sabetti books--LEMspare (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC).--LEMspare (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've checked out several of the "references" and I'm not impressed. For example California Press Bureau Syndication, Lifestyle Update, Madame and the Glendale Church of Religious Science scarcely count as reliable sources. I tried to track down the presentations given to the European Congress of Psychotherapy but couldn't find any conference programmes - and in any case that wouldn't prove notability, and the presentations might not even have been properly peer reviewed. andy (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per andy. First three of his books I found were published by his own institute = self-publishing to me. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There again, looking at the list in the article, they appear all to be self-published. Peridon (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to this page from the article's talk page:

"I would vote to NOT delete Stèphano Sabetti on Wikipedia. Why? Isn't Wikipedia the most democratic imformative website in the world? What happens to diversity then? I have attended some of his workshops and read his books. This is a man with extensive knowledge about bodywork, Eastern and Western medicine and somatics, academic psychology, energy psychology, spirituality, and more. Some might even consider him wise. He is articulate, nuanced and human. He is compassionate and passionate. He is also sharp, and can tell it like it is. and all of this - with love. Do we really want to leave the e-media (as well as all the other media) to the guys with the quickest fixes and the slickets pitches? Please, people! If Wikipedia has become "too big" - then I suggest you open a branch office. Don't delete Dr. Sabetti!" Posted by User Lynn6649. Copied to this discussion by Peridon (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above There is plenty of diversity on Wikipedia, but as it is an encyclopaedia we need reliable outside references rather than personal endorsements. Democracy without rules is anarchy. Without our rules here, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed by pages proclaiming that "Shawn is awwwweeeesssssommme!!!!" and adverts for the local grasscutting service (est. 2009, 2 employees and a dog). We don't want to delete Dr Sabetti. We will delete his article if it is not shown to be notable by our rules. (It's our ball, it's our field...) Peridon (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Believe in Fate[edit]

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

Delete. NN album which has not yet been released, with a "TBA" release date. JBsupreme (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced Future album. Only source, which is not formated properly is a twitter page. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. andyzweb (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling album artists[edit]

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

It was suggested the article could be merged with List of best-selling music artists. Though some people and myself should think it should be deleted. The list contains questionable figures, ~~and is mainly~~ some of which are supported by unreliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list cannot be saved. JBsupreme (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the list may be seen as banal it is also the type of mind numbingly daft thing that many folk visit Wikipedia to find. It's hellishly difficult to maintain, but it adds more value than a simple category. However it does not necessarily reflect non English Language artists. There is work needed, but that does not remove its validity. The content is notable, and it appears well referenced (I have not followed the references), though the refs need some work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a list that will need maintaining beyond today, what if someone gives it up, other editors would have to take over. Also fails to pass WP:NOTDIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWOAP (talk • contribs)

But every article needs maintaining beyond today. How is that a rationale for deletion? Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not a directory, so where did that come from as an argument for deletion? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Keep Clearly notable list with defined inclusion criteria. It's not like one album is suddenly going to shift 50 million copies overnight and cause confussion... Lugnuts (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? This list is relying strongly on fanofmusic.free.fr as a source. The introduction is written in the voice of first person. The list is a DIRECTORY listing. The figures are questionable. The problems go on and on and on. Even if they were fixed, you're still left with a directory listing. JBsupreme (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have skimmed down the references given. The majority of them are not the site you state. And using block capitals does not make a thing true. If it is a directory please state why with clarity and without shouting. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an approriate topic for a standalone list. It does not fall foul of wp:not#, having a well-defined topic with clear inclusion criteria ("music artists" that "have had record album sales"). As a form of almanac, it is natural that a list should be updated at least yearly. Sources for best selling record, I have no doubt, are less than hard to find. The nominator's reason, that some sources are unreliable, is wholly insufficient ground for deletion. Only a clear minority are debatable. My opinion is the content of this article, especially its sources, should be kept and merged with List of best-selling music artists. ¨¨ victor falk 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term "most commercially successful" is open to interpretation and arguably runs afoul of WP:NPOV. What is the defining characteristic of commercial success for these albums, and what is the cutoff point? JBsupreme (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I only had to go over a few of the sources provided at that page to realize how hopeless the entire article is. Even if a group of editors dared to invest enough time in cleaning-up that page by replacing all unreliable sources with highly reliable ones, the figures of that article wouldn't look any different than that of "List of best-selling music artists" because news services almost never speak of album-sales only, they all speak of worldwide-sales (or US sales, or UK sales for example) even when they use the term albums instead of records. This source for example, states that Eminem has sold 80 million albums, they don't necessarily mean albums-sales only, they are simply stating Eminem's worldwide sales, including singles, videos. However, news services as well as music industry related associations do speak of album-sales respectively. For example, this source mentions the US sales for Hilary Duff's album Metamorphosis. And we already have an article here at wikipedia which states album-sales on individual bases, List of best-selling albums worldwide the sources of which I'm afraid to go over since sales figures are sensitive subject for me and something tells me that I may find number of inflated figures published by weakly reliable sources. --Harout72 (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many unreliable sources Bluesatellite (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biol4 25.01.10[edit]

dont delete

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

Two reasons for deletion: the title and its associated content really don't make any sense--one can figure out from the references what such a topic might be, though: something like "there was an outcry over some exam." Reason two follows from there: WP:NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to serve any real purpose; looks like sombodies draft of a school article which would fall under WP:NOTWEBHOST HalfShadow 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HalfShadow, thanks for helping clean that up. I guess school was out somewhere! Drmies (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems the facebook group should stay on facebook. I agree with Drmies. Jared Preston (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is required to contain the group who have already tried fiddling with other pages to express their views. This way it can remain relatively un-biased and not impact on people who don't want to see it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigmyshrew (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a misinterpretation as to what Wikipedia is. We're not here so you can 'express your views', we're here to be an encyclopedia. HalfShadow 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best way to keep them from messing about with other articles, nobody will go near it un-intentionally due to the ridiculous title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigmyshrew (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like the article itself, this doesn't make any sense at all. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not GeoCities/MySpace/Facebook/free blog. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is based upon the AQA Biology Unit 4 paper sat by just under 20'000 students on the 25th of January 2010. The paper caused immediate concern amongst both students and teachers alike causing the creating of a Facebook group which has since gathered over 13'000 supporters who believe that the exam "was a disgrace". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mainly per WP:NOTNEWS, but also because I can't see it being written in a way that is encyclopedic. Not enough sourced, objective, notable information on the subject. PenguinCopter (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it wasn't written in an encyclopedic tone, and looks like an essay or a personal analysis. It's well-covered by the media, but it's unlikely to be a constant subject in the news, in a way that would make it suitable for inclusion. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The issue is complex and simply giving a subjective version of the controversy is not appropriate. There are many reasons why these students are posting on facebook, perhaps their teachers didn't prepare them properly for the exam. Many appear to be simply joining in with the mob. Until the students receive their results and OFQUAL has reported on the situation this article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrewsrus (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Reuben Cohen[edit]

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

Scanning the internet, notability guideline for academics in hand, I cannot see any evidence that this guy is more notable than any other college professor. pablo_hablo. 22:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A professional philosopher with only one book, having the same title as his 1991 Ph.D. thesis, not published until 2009, and with no book reviews that I can find? Not a good sign. His name is too common to make searching easy, but I tried anyway and didn't find much on Google scholar and Google books. In any case I don't think he passes WP:PROF #1 nor any of the other criteria there. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. 19 years after the Ph.D. is usually not too early: if they're going to become notable as an academic, that's plenty of time to do it in. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. Perhaps I was trying to be charitable. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Not enough work. MiRroar (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:prof. Being the director of General Education isn't really an indicator of prominence in one's field (if anything, it's the exact opposite). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add to these points that his main book publication, "Science, Culture, and Free Spirits", is held by fewer than 10 institutions according to WorldCat. As David said above, this seems to be his published PhD thesis, implying that he hasn't actually produced much notable scholarship past his grad school days. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agree, this doesn't look good for his article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of square flags[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pictures or information nor a directory, this page posing as an article is basically a set of pictures of flags with squares on them; a similar gallery of flags with stars on them was deleted a while ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of flags with stars and this seems little more than same stuff, different shape.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:IINFO. And there are some very peculiar concepts of "square" in there! :) Warrah (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate. i can see a list of state/national flags which are square, as that is rare and notable. i dont see the need for an article which showcases flags with square motifs, as a square doesnt seem to have much notability as a symbol in flags, unlike, say, a star. combining the two into one article, is, of course, search engine-like inclusiveness.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed - Gallery of flags by design is probably all that is required (which also links to commons cats to show further flags), note other galleries also exist like Gallery of flags with triangles which are probably not needed either. 23:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pasado, Presente & Futuro (Past, Present, And Future) (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pasado, Presente & Futuro (Past, Present, And Future) (album)

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

Issue with WP:CRYSTAL, no reliable sources other than reviews that are themselves crystal-ish. No known release date. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Start with this search. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can find no significant coverage independent of the subject in any reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. J04n(talk page) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Aloud. Scott Mac (Doc) 13:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live 2009[edit]

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

Cannot find reliable sources outside band's website and various download sites. No evidence of notability for free album. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What lives must die, if it doesn't have non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information and redirect to Aloud, does not have sufficient independent coverage to pass WP:GNG for a stand alone article but the lead section could enhance the parent article. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have completed the merge to the Aloud article as suggested by J04n. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Doens't seem to be anything notable about this, and the amount of context isn't much (kind of fails quality guidelines) Alan - talk 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Dolph[edit]

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

Delete. Part of a giant WP:WALLEDGARDEN, this is a non-notable translator / rapper (yes, I said it!) for video games. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:BIO pretty hard. Doing translation work for a notable game isn't really evidence of notability in the total absensce of people writing about you. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable video-game translator. Clear fail of BIO and CREATIVE.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation[edit]

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

Not much coverage, quick google shows not many results for it apart from Facebook Myspace etc, simply not notable enough Quiggers1P (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant COI. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantially a copy of [1], plus above concerns . MER-C 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jon Bon Jovi#Charitable work as plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 11:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's no compelling argument to delete, and no consensus to either. Ged UK 08:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open Singles Finals appearances[edit]

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

All the information in this article is available in other articles, including Australian Open and (for example) List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions Wikipeterproject. (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not because it just has the list of the years champions and runners-up, not the compilation of the finals, which it is necessary to show because it is cited in the press countless times with regard to tennis player careers. This list the exact finals each player makes and the ones they win and lose, and who wants to have delve thru that massive amount of information. The women's articles do not cite the years like the mens, which means this is necessary to make the finals each participant on the women's and men's to navagable.69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does not satisfy any of these reasons for deletion, go look nominator Wikipedia:DEL#REASON!69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for a while I just did not know how to move it, but go look here List of Australian Open Final appearances and Australian Open Final appearances. This since Sept. 2007.69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to all of these:

French Open Final appearances
Wimbledon Final appearances
U.S. Open Final appearances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nominator is pissed off how I edited Andy Murray's article, which he/she is doing this for retribution, period end of story. I think this is enough for this discussion to be closed and article kept.69.137.120.81 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator doesn't know what you, 69.137.120.81, are talking about. I am not upset or, as you put it, "pissed off" about anything or anyone. Just testing whether this is a redundant list, that's all... Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is no valid reason to delete. Article is sourced with reliable sources, and with this it mets WP:V and WP:RS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Wikipeterproject, but it was just a little suspicious about how you did this right after I did the murray page. If these are redundant then these articles in the two navboxs are

v t e Men's major golf championships
Current	Masters Tournament PGA Championship U.S. Open The Open Championship
Past	British Amateur U.S. Amateur
See also	Most wins Chronological Grand Slam

Plus, these are used in the records tables of Roger Federer, Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl, Bjorn Borg, Stefan Edberg, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong, Martina Hingis, which it needs to be their to explain the finals are something different than wins or champions.69.137.120.81 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I think we need to go by the HOF and Grand Slam History, and have a page on the finals because it is cited by each one just go look at these two links one is a player and the other has a list, which go click on Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova and see my point

[[2]]
[[3]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finals matter if not more at least equal to championships in tennis terms because they always cite Pete Sampras not making a French Open Final let alone win as a diminshment of his legacy in tennis terms.69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The champions pages (such as List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions) have both the winner and runner-up, hence the same information as this page. I guess the only difference is that you don't get an aggregate of total finals appearances. Something to add to the champions page, perhaps? I don't have strong feelings - I just think it's a bit messy having so many pages essentially providing the same information. I recognise the substantial work that you, [User;69.137.120.81] must have put into this page and I'm not having a go at you at all. Like I am sure you do, I just want to help make Wikipedia as good as possible, so if the consensus is to keep this one, I have no problem with that at all! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just perfer one set standard on wikipedia, but that would never happen, so I guess redundancy is in the eye or eyes of the beholder(s).69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I usually don't make content, but make it better, which I did here!69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One article deals with champions, which will not include the finals statistics and historical context of the events last stage, but the Finals article can list final consecutive and have the multiple times met. The other article it would get deleted because it would not belong because one is for champs not finalist!69.137.120.81 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the main article has non-australian open champs, which is not correct to put these tables into that article because of all of the addendums that would have to be made for the Amateur era, which I would HATE to do! Pre and Post 68 matters in tennis. I will compile these into one finals article for all grand slam finals if I have to, but I really don't want to! I think it is up to the DELETIONIST to prove their point as to why this must be deleted not me advocating for the keeping of these articles! Plus it is in the navbox, so it is findable for these articles!69.137.120.81 (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go look, how many addendums are made in the List of Australian Open Men's Singles champions article just to compile everything together, which is bad practice on wikipedia! I am think about splitting them up, and re-nominating them again for FL status if these articles are forced to be merged with the other one! Australasian Championship (1905-1926), Australian Championships (1927-1968), and Australian Open (1969-Present), which OPEN stands for something, Roy Emerson never made it to the Australian Open finals rather the Australian Championships, so his records do not belong aside Federer's at all!69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because finals are different than champions, and open is different than championships, which the champions articles have to have too many addendums, which is frowned upon just go look at the A and B notes!69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article is about the List of the Finals of a Great Slam event, which is comparable to the mirroring articles of the other slam events. user:sulmues--Sulmues 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which suggests that the existence of similar articles isn't, of itself, justification for another article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main articles are too long for this other stuff to be added, so it needs a new article under the policy of Size.BLUE _DOG^TN 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent Heart[edit]

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

This article qualifies for speedy under CSD-G5. It was created by Xtinadbest, a user with over 20 socking cases and 50 socks (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive). Unfortunately, due to a disagreement between me and the processing admin ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ged_UK&oldid=340586229#Your_speedy_decline_on_Innocent_Heart), I have been forced to take it to AFD. Even leaving CSD G5 aside, the article fails WP:NSONGS: it has never charted on a legitimate chart. The "Maltese Singles Chart" is not a chart, it is simply the playlist of a single station. —Kww(talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically, by the letter of the law, this does not qualify for G5, though some of us might think it does by the spirit of the law. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why don't you think it qualifies? It certainly does by my reading.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- and while we're at it, check out Ruth Portelli. Equally unknown... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and another thing: we have another sock User:Mimmirocks. I'm just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added Mimmirocks to the SPI report.—Kww(talk) 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I would speedy it as g5 if not for the dispute referenced above. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Perou[edit]

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

Non-notable person, article from the maker of Lindsay Dodd. After removing unverified praise and grandstanding, there wasn't much left--and this is all that Google News has to say on the topic. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable article topic, and that the prose text should be expanded, possibly spinning it off or reframing the page as an article instead of as a list. Sandstein 06:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of nudity in music videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is insufficient indication that this is an encyclopedic topic. The intersection of nudity and music videos appears trivial (as would, say List of barnyard animals in music videos or List of nudity in perfume advertisements). The previous AfD closed on 11 May 2009 with all keep !votes indicating a need for stricter inclusion criteria...none have been proposed and the list has only expanded with no direction. The semi-redeemable content (last 3 sentences of 1st paragraph) would do better in articles on nudity, music videos or maybe a censorship topic. Bottom line: this does not appear to be a notable topic in its own right. — Scientizzle 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a trivial intersection, yes, just like most of the lists we host which are trivial and indiscriminatory. :( JBsupreme (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non encyclopedic trivial cruft. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat}
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of nudity in music videos is not trivial, it's a notable topic, see all these sources:[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. I sourced some of the entries back in May before losing interest, but it's perfectly possible to source them, whereas I highly doubt anyone has written on the topic of barnyard animals in music videos - so your example is, frankly, pathetic. Nudity in music videos is still not the norm, and any entry should be sourced (or removed if it cannot be) which is why such a list is not indiscriminate, whereas "List of nudity in films" would be ridiculous. Do actually look at whether sources exist for topics before calling for their deletion. If any prudes are cheering at the prospect of deletion, if it is deleted I'll simply create "Nudity and sex in music videos" using all the sources I've listed. Fences&Windows 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it isn't a trival subject, then why can't it be moved to an article "Nudity in music videos" and discussed and written into a proper article with numerous examples given in text the way an encyclopedia article should be written? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've made a decent argument here for an article on Nudity in music videos (currently a redirect to this list). What you haven't made is an argument to justify a list of nudity-contining music videos. I think a reasonable middle ground here would be to move the content to Nudity in music videos or Nudity and sex in music videos and strip (pun intended) the article of its haphazard list and deal with the topic as an article. Such an actual article can discuss the various ways in which nudity is portrayed and censored, notable examples of nudity in music videos, and the relative prevalence on TV in various countries and teh intarwebs. These sources would be a fine foundation for that. — Scientizzle 14:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a further note, an article rather than a list would put the topic more in-line with related subjects (e.g., Nudity in American television, lacking a List of nudity in American television even though such nudity 'is still not the norm'.) — Scientizzle 15:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate sourcing specified above. I proposed the " but use stricter criteria--at least for the more recent years (eg, topless is no longer all that significant). Possibly even limit to known performers, not just some person in the background." last time, but there is no deadline on improvement. If the nominator thinks it's urgent, nothing is stopping him from doing it. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nudity in music videos I believe there's adequate sourcing for an article about the issue of "Nudity in music videos" - however as a list and in its current state it is trivial, indiscriminate and unpolicable and if not moved should be deleted. The sources listed do highlight certain videos but not all - other sources (ie [15][16][17]) deal with the issue in general. Fundamentally there's no reason for this to be a list when the sources demonstrate that it could be an article that incorporates a short well sourced list of notable instances of nudity in videos (as per WP:EMBED)--Cailil ^talk 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and refactor per User:Calil. This is a legitimate topic for an article, but not a list on its own. Also, "nudity" is singular, so "List of nudity in music videos" is grammatically dubious. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and refactor per User:Cailil. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scientizzle and Calil. Those were my points exactly. Ther eis neough sourcing to write a proper written article with text vcovering various issues and citing various examples in prose rather than some scrappy list. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename per Cailal. Each entry needs to clearly explain why it's included, the lede also should be overviewing all of this. If the lede and inclusion criteria aren't improved the list is less helpful to our readers without the context. Many filmmakers and experimental techniques start in music videos. -- Banjeboi 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable topic and has been discussed in media over the years. Might be better per Cailil. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only is the list notable, the topic and the related censorship should be explored in an article. In other words, keep the list AND write an article describing the trends and policies that affect this certainly notable subject.Trackinfo (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Dodd[edit]

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

The guy walked backwards and was a soundman for a documentary. The Google snipped from the Guinness book of world records won't let me verify if it's really a "world record," but it doesn't sound like much. And even if it were--this subject does not deserve an entry. BTW, it's interesting that this is such a target for vandalism, given that the name doesn't generate a single hit in Google News: the Notre Dame student government president of the same name is more notable that this guy. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for speedy delete! Jared Preston (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too vote for a speedy deletion. How do we do it. the man is a crook! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.90 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just not a helpful comment, and the closing administrator will probably ignore it. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for a deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.189.90 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for speedy delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.19.47 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 81.141.189.90 are 86.190.19.47 are socks per edit history (part of a pattern with this article that will likely continue). Fortunately, this is not a vote, so lots of anonymous editors with no history other than disruption who say "delete" will have no effect on the outcome here. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without question unless someone can verify the world-record claim. Otherwise, merge and redirect as an entry in the list of exceptional persons at backward running. I don't think his notability and worthwhile content is sufficient to have a full page at this time, so if he's got one notable achievement, include it in the article about the topic of that achievement. If the achievement is (marginally at best IMO) notable, better to keep it together with everything about that topic (in the spirit of WP:BLP1E). This person does not seem to meet WP:ATHLETE notability standard. DMacks (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI vote for a speedy delete this article does not meet any wiki standards the person is of no note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.19.23 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked 86.190.19.23 for the duration of this AfD, and will do so for any similar editors, who appear to be socks that merely disrupt the article and try to stack this !vote with votes, subject to other admins' objection. DMacks (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family automorphism[edit]

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

Long standing unreferenced tag. Search on Google books turned up nothing relevant. No evidence of notability. RDBury (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the concept is particularly notable. It might be worth noting that the author has not trans-wikied the entry to his own wiki: http://groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Automorphism_property JackSchmidt (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Even if sources are found it's not clear it's worthy of an article on its own, as it's a single line definition, perhaps better suited to an article on group automorphisms. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brigit Kelly Young[edit]

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

Non-notable writer lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, suggest extra spanking for SPA that removed the speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No further comment. JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail the relevant notability criteria. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find significant coverage or anything else to support a claim under WP:AUTHOR. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dakar Rally. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Dakar Rally[edit]

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

Provides little or no information, includes redlinked template and only reference is speculative. If an article is only one sentence long, it probably should not be created. Falcadore (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article Dakar Rally 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, forgot. Better solution. Implementing. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Martin (professor)[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of notability. It seems to be about a non-notable professor with some outspoken views, but no obvious indication of notability. The only source is his own university page, the organisation he's involved with is itself not notable, and the recent books publications seem neither academically or normally mainstream. A google search turns up nothing (though it's a difficult name to search for). JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject's fringe views are mostly self-published. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Freedom Press, long-standing London-based publisher of anarchist books. He has 3 books in print there and at least one more that I know of ("Strip the Experts", 1991 ISBN 0900384638). AllyD (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As DGG once said, full professors at major universities are almost always notable. Google search turns up quite a lot here. Martin's CV is here. He has a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Sydney and worked for a time at the prestigious CSIRO. He is author of a dozen books and over 200 major articles and chapters. Johnfos (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* comment just being a professor does not make him notable anywhere - for guidelines see WP:PROF. The google search you've linked to just turns up information that's on his web page, i.e. a few books by fringe publishers. The cv and other info is from his web site, and just working for anyone is irrelevant (I could list more notable organisations I've worked for, it does not make me at all notable).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wonder if Martin's website is causing some confusion here. Almost all the material on the website is published elsewhere, but he is apparently making it easily and freely available on one site. Original sources for the material are given in each case. For example, Martin's CV is also on the university website here. Hope this helps. Johnfos (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment no, no confusion here. My point was it's not an indication of notability that he's had books published - anyone can do that, and its very common in academia. "Material" on his website and a mirror of his cv do nothing to establish notability. See WP:PROF for a list of things that establish notability. Based on the article as it stands he comes close to none of them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What 3rd parties, intellectually independent of the subject, has covered him in depth? If they cannot be found, he's NN, see WP:ANYBIO that WP:PROF does not trump. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I've noted above, Martin has a long publishing history with Freedom Press, both in books and in journal articles (e.g. "Compulsory Voting: A useful target for anti-state action?" in The Raven (journal) no 14, 1991). AllyD (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF states: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Not !voting yet though as I haven't fully evaluated this guy. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A major figure in suppression of dissent, academic freedom issues, particularly in Australia. Try searching for "Brian Martin" not "Brian Martin (professor)" and add a few search terms like "academic freedom". Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I can see quite a few news articles (most of which are for Professor Martin). Seems to have been written about sufficiently for a verifyable, reliably-sourced article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same search on Google turns up 25,700 Ghits. It is strange that the nominator says that a Google search turns up nothing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I won't disagree that my google-fu is easily bested by more experienced editors; I did not think of adding his location. But ghits are not an indication of notability, not are books he's written (unless they are significant enough to make him notable as an author). That needs independent, secondary coverage of him or his work, and it needs to referenced be in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the news articles. News articles seem to be independant and secondary. I can't see what the problem is - Peripitus (Talk) 20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person should be the subject of independent, secondary material, not simply mentioned in a few news items over two decades. Most of the news items found by that search are for other people – a judge and mayor and broadcaster in Autralia – and I don't see one that is significantly on him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now incorporated some text and refs from Peripitus's search (BBC, ABC) and more (Australian Senate Inquiry) into the article. That still leaves others (Washington Post behind a pay-per-view) which might be added. I'd say these are strong and clear indications of what used to be called a "public intellectual". AllyD (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clarifying some confusion here - the nom has repeatedly said that secondary coverage is required to meet the notability standards of WP:PROF. However, the page as of now has criterion 1, which says "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Note 1 says "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". For the purposes of academics, their work being cited can provide evidence of notability. This is necessary because there are plenty of notable, prolific researchers who do not have articles devoted to them. A search for Brian Martin in Google Scholar turns up his 1979 "Numerical inversion of the Laplace transform..." article, which is shown as cited in GScholar 287 times. Note 2 of WP:PROF cautions that GScholar may underestimate citation hits; it can also overestimate the number of low-quality hits, but in this case the vast majority of hits are to peer-reviewed journal articles. Regardless even of Martin's mathematical and physics research, he is a prominent researcher on scientific controversy and scientific dissent, and is cited in news articles for comments on such topics (see news hits above). II | (t - c) 17:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment The paper is Numerical Inversion of the Laplace Transform: a Survey and Comparison of Methods, i.e. a review of other people's work on an undergraduate level technique. Hardly a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (Criterion 1 at WP:PROF). It also unrelated to why the article says he is notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Xxianthipe and II. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scientific dissent is not an academic department and it looks like Brian Martin agrees with scientific dissenters more then he is a researcher of scientific dissent. MiRroar (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Martin's particular positions and views are irrelevant to this discussion? (WP:NPOV) AllyD (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brian Martin is a whistleblower who has headed a whistleblower unit at an international level. His role means that whistleblowers will contact him in relation to their issues, and any of substance he will speak out on, hence the appearance of speaking for dissenters, which is merely an adjunct to his current work. His work is unique and serves a function recognized by University allowing research and development in his field. I understand he had to blow the whistle on some issue that involved his work in Physics in the late '70s and has pursued that subsequently to allow other whistleblowers knowledge on how to appropriately deal with issues. DDB (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search of Google Scholar with author:Brian Martin, and picking out the relevant hits, gives cites of 287, 83, 81, 65, 57, 60, 53, 43, 41, 36, 36, 31, 26, 24, 24, 24, 24, 23, 23, 23, 22, 21, 21, 20, 20...etc. giving an h index of 21. A clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Again, it is surprising that the nominator of this AfD missed this data. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. This is among the worst researched AfD nominations that I have seen on these pages. I suggest that the nominator withdraw it to avoid wasting further the time of editors who are already overburdened by the current deletion frenzy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

comment thank you or the suggestion, but I am still unconvinced. Currently despite the efforts of other editors the article still has nowhere near enough evidence of notability for it to be kept. It's not even clear what he is notable for. If it's his contributions to physics or mathematics then they are not given in the article: it only says he received a PhD in physics and taught applied maths. If it's as a social scientist then there's no evidence: just a list of self-published or small-press opinion pieces. The main references are his own website and one of his books. The independent coverage is very thin and none is primarily about him.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this continued assertion baffling... Are the British and Australian Broadcasting Corporations references self-published or small-press? Is the footnoted BBC report on "one of the best-attended sessions at the British Association's Festival of Science" directly quoting Martin an example of "thin" independent coverage? AllyD (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding this whole AfD a bit baffling -- seldom have I seen an AfD with so many repetitive interjections from the nominator. Johnfos (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Reliable sources show that he is notable and the article is important. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not at all sure he is actually notable as a mathematician or a physicist or an astronomer; When I did the citation count, the only even moderately cited articles in these fields were done as part of a large team, or as a junior worker. But he switched fields; the majority of his published work, including all of his books, does not really fit into any one academic field; his university calls it " Science, technology, and society" but I usually think of it as Science Studies, or, in his particular case, Sociology of Science. --studies about science. His particular topics are things I find rather difficult to judge academic notability, because they are really quite diverse. But in any case he is certainly notable as an author. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After his career change he made himself notable as an academic sociologist and his cites show it. Because of his science background much, but not all, of his work has been on science-related issues. I do not think that one can throw a person out of the WP:Prof category because they are one of the few practicioners in a non-standard field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. It seems pretty clear this is a hoax. Ged UK 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Manzoor Lone[edit]

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

The article author has, since creation, changed the schools attended without explanation, and without references. This reads like a self-promoting puff piece, an inflated résumé, not a legit article. Every reference added has been extremely general, and did not support the facts it was attached to. Without reliable sources, and with the suspect edits, I'm inclined to dismiss the vast majority as a fabrication to make a non-notable professor seem notable. Even if it isn't, the institutions for which he theoretically served in notable positions (according to WP:PROF) appear themselves non-notable; if the organization isn't notable, there is no transitive notability for executive positions at it. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I think that a snow closure would be entirely appropriate, especially since this is not explicit enough for ((db-hoax)). All India Institute of Medical Sciences of which the subject was supposedly the Chancellor, doesn't have that position. The Institute is not a university per se and comes directly under the control of the Government of India's Ministry of Health, and the Health Minister serves as the chair of the governing body. Also, this person's name is not included in the organization's list of Directors. For someone who was the head of AIIMS in the nineties, there should be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more Ghits. –SpacemanSpiff 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there's a medical student from Lahore of the same name. –SpacemanSpiff 00:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SpacemanSpiff and the total lack of references to back the claims the article makes. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant failure of WP:V. For instance, the claims of chairing a major department at Mass General and acting as interim director are not consistent with the complete absence of Lone's name from Harvard web sites. Also, "University Of Cambridge"? I agree that it's not quite so obvious a hoax as to warrant a G3 speedy, but early closure is a possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References? MiRroar (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I initially did some work to move it beyond speedy deletion, but after further analysis and the above findings, it obviously should be deleted.--Pink Bull 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The delete reasons "Delete with prejudice" and "trivializes the Holocaust" are unfounded in Wikipedia policy, resulting in no consensus to delete the former article content. The article has been redirected by its author to Mass killings under Communist regimes, which also moots the deletion rationale "redundant". This status does not seem to be contested, but can be at WP:RFD if necessary. Sandstein 06:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Holocaust[edit]

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

Original research about a neologism. A yet another highly emotional synonym topic itself is already covered in numerous articles: Communist genocide, communist terrorism, etc. Quite a few scholars and victims of The Holocaust object the (mis)use of the word, like Silicone Holocaust (deleted). - Altenmann >t 19:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (update: strong keep as a redirect). The two terms covered by the article (Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust) are hardly "original research" or "neologisms", but well established terms used by the United States government, several notable books published by leading academic presses, and other scholarly works, and in public discourse for at least two decades (possibly longer). The terms in themselves have also been the subject of much debate, just search for the two terms Red Holocaust or Communist Holocaust or their German or French equivalents. Virgil Lasis (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just some examples of the usage of the term (several others can be found)

Rosefielde, Steven (2009). Red Holocaust. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-77757-5.
Möller, Horst (1999). Der rote Holocaust und die Deutschen. Die Debatte um das 'Schwarzbuch des Kommunismus' [The Red Holocaust and the Germans: The Debate over the Black Book of Communism]. Piper Verlag. ISBN 978-3492041195.
The term Communist Holocaust is used by an Act of Congress (1993) establishing the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
The term Communist holocaust is also used by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation itself, an educational organization established and funded by the United States Congress[18]
A book critical of the term, titled 'Roter Holocaust'? Kritik des Schwarzbuchs des Kommunismus ("Red Holocaust?") was published already in 1998[19] - and still some users pretend the term doesn't exist. Amazing.

That is not correct. If you want to read H.R. 3000 from 1993, here it is but you will not find any use of that phrase by the U.S. Congress. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is incorrect. Your link is not relevant. The source has already been pointed out at the talk page. It is even referred to in the introduction to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes could be appropriate if the terms were discussed, and mentioned in the lead section, of that article. Virgil Lasis (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm implementing this right ahead. For the record, the original article under discussion. Virgil Lasis (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice. (Igny (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The term trivializes the Holocaust and use of the term is therefore widely considered to be implicitly anti-Semitic. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored ("being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content). The only thing that matter is whether the term is an established term, not your personal opinion of it (which many would disagree with). Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. I don't see how can it add anything new to the subject. "Communist Holocaust", or "Red Holocaust" are some allegoric terms used (very infrequently by scholars, and more frequently by politicians and journalists) to describe repressions, executions, deportations and famines under some Communist regimes. That is what the article "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is already doing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time you wrote this, the article was a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes. So what are you actually voting to delete? Apparently, you acknowledge that the term is used "more frequently by politicians and journalists". If the usage of a term is established, there is no need to delete a redirect. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I can see the argument for a redirect as a search term, I have to emphasize that "holocaust" is not a synonym for genocide. Strictly speaking, a holocaust is a totally destructive fire. Thus, it has been a word used to describe nuclear war, as well as the Nazi vision of destroying a race so thoroughly that all traces were burned to ashes. The phrase came into general use in 1961 when Adolf Eichmann was prosecuted by Israel. I agree that it is offensive to use this as a buzzword when one can't think of another word for mass murder. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your argument. The question should not be what Wikipedia users agree with, but whether a term is sufficiently established to be a redirect. A term used by the Unites States Congress and several other sources certainly is. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the term was NOT "used by the United States Congress". Congress voted money in 1993 to establish the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, and 16 years later, the foundation's public relations person carelessly used the phrase on the foundation's webpage. To me, it would be just as offensive to toss the phrases "Cultural Revolution" or "Killing Fields" or "gulag" as synonyms for a campaign of terror or extermination. Mandsford (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. For starters, you could read our own article on the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion is becoming confusing. I created this article before I was aware of the existence of Mass killings under Communist regimes. I have already redirected the article to that article. Note that some of the users commenting above seem to be primarly engaged in pushing communist POV at the mentioned article. There is no need for continued debate on whether Communist Holocaust should be kept as a separate article. If someone wants to delete the redirects, they should nominate the redirects as such. Of course, there is no prospect of the redirects being deleted as they are extremely established and widely used terms, used by the United States government, numerous scholarly works and in public discourse. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. And, of course, those of us who are disagree with you are "primarily engaged in pushing communist POV", right? Again, this term is not "used by the U.S. government". As a book search shows, where it is used at all (and as others have demonstrated it is not "widely used"), it's frequently (not always, but often enough) called the "Jewish Communist Holocaust" [20] with the idea being that Jews in the Soviet Union participated in the atrocities there, wherefore the victims of the Holocaust had it coming to them. The disambiguation page for red holocaust (referred to below) is somewhat different, in that there was a best selling paperback and a later book with that title. You can argue all you want to that this should be approved as an encyclopedia entry (in the form of "Communist Holocaust", see "Mass killings..."). But we don't make redirects for every possible phrase that a person can think of. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you are mistaken. We make redirects from established terms. End of story. If you don't like it, get yourself your own website. This is an encyclopedia. Virgil Lasis (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you are at the right site? Please be WP:CIVIL to your fellow editors. (Igny (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: The same reasoning for deletion or keeping should be applied to Red holocaust redirect. Nevermind, it is a disambig now. (Igny (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment (in bold to draw attention). I have rewritten Red Holocaust, and one possible solution is to redirect Communist genocide and Communist holocaust there and basically write a short article on usage of these terms. Even though these terms are not defined to be mass killings under Communist regimes, they may be notable enough to write an article on their usage. We could focus on who and under what circumstances used these terms, criticism of such usage etc. (Igny (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I find it strange that you would create an article on exactly the same topic while this former article is strangely enough still considered for deletion. The article on mass killings under communist regimes clearly is intended to cover all deaths that were result of repressive communist policies. Perhaps the article needs a better title. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV junk. Everyking (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect from a term used by the United States government can hardly be "POV junk". Also familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette Wikipedia:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your own POV. Virgil Lasis (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, User:Everyking has not made a "personal attack" against anybody, nor breached any rule of etiquette. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per User:Igny's comment, I would also like to draw attention to Talk:Red Holocaust, a discussion of an identical article (i.e. an article on the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust) that created by Igny. I don't object to the creation of an article on the terms Red Holocaust and Communist Holocaust, of course - the article being discussed here was such an article until it became a redirect to Mass killings under Communist regimes. Virgil Lasis (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable political term. Defender of torch (talk) 11:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Doody[edit]

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

Nonnotable comedian. Some light references but nothing serious. Chutznik (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guardian. His works are even cited in Encyclopedia Britannica. Along with reliable Edinburgh based sources that just turned up with a google search I'd say this is probably notable enough for a comedian bio. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Blofeld, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blofeld makes a good case. Google news search has a lot of results, and when you add in the word comedian to make certain you got the right guy, you still have 25 results, definitely about him. [21] Dream Focus 10:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Balam[edit]

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

Delete. Contested prod on the basis that this figure is notable, but I am unable to locate non-trivial coverage of this person by reliable third party outlets. JBsupreme (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try searching for "David Balam" without the middle initial. Lots of hits on scholar. News has some interesting bits, unfortunately most of it is pay-per-view archive. Some interesting info from G-news and the abstracts: BC telescope a key anti-asteroid sentry, Toronto Star, May 10, 1998 "University of Victoria astronomer David Balam is one of the world's most prolific contributors to this research. In addition to his measurements of known ..." and "Hollywood trivia: in the original screenplay for Armageddon, two of the characters were named Brian Balam and David Marsden, in honour of Victoria's David Balam and American asteroid researcher Brian Marsden." He also has an asteroid system named after him, 2nd result (3749) Balam: A Very Young Multiple Asteroid System, see also 3749 Balam. I don't know why the International Astronomical Union would name anything for him if he wasn't notable. More sources are definitely needed for the article, but I think they're out there. Wine Guy Talk 11:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention above that Comet Zhu-Balam, which he identified, is also named for him. Wine Guy Talk 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep if the claim of 600 asteroid discoveries, etc can be verified and if this is considered notable in astronmoical circles. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable asteroid hunter with an asteroid named after him. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable astronomer, also (if not more) notable for his work in supernovae:advanced scholar googling: 142 hits, most cited article 938 times. ¨¨ victor falk 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've slightly expanded the article and added 4 sources; hopefully that makes his notability a bit more clear. Wine Guy Talk 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm unsure about WP:PROF (not because of the citation numbers, which are good, but because he's in a middle position on the highly cited papers). However I think Wine Guy's improvements are enough to show that he passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rough consensus is that the available sourcing isn't enough.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Brenner[edit]

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

Unsourced blp on a minor online porn star (i don't consider myspace and personal websites reliable sources) for which there do not exist sufficient reliable sources to construct a fair, verifiable and accurate biography. Appears to fail all the relevant BIO guidelines. Been repeatedly deprodded without reliable sources added, let along ones that would establish notability. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found one good source easily.[22] The sources already there are reliable per WP:SPS, but not independent. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (people). No hits in IAFD, so notability via WP:PORNBIO is unlikely. IMDB filmography is particularly sparse. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are some google hits (the stars.ign.com one in particular and welll as the playboy site) but I don't see anything substantial enough to pass PORNBIO. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I unprodded a long time ago on the premise that she'd won some nontrivial awards (see this old version). But if we can't prove that she did, and the awards aren't notable enough, I could understand deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only non trivial awards I see are Playboy Cyber Girl (which are still pretty trivial) but it is by Playboy so has some significance in this first. But I would suggest a list of award winners by month and year in that article, and in most cases not a seperate biography.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an "award." That's an online photoshoot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "Playboy ""Cyber Girl of the Week""" (2002) and month, they were listed under Web awards or nominations. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i understand that a previous wikipedia editor listed "playboy cybergirl of the week" as an award. But that wikipedia editor was wrong. IT meant she was hired for a nudy pic for the website (and not for the magazine). Assuming 52 weeks in the year, that's 52 "cybergirls of the week awards."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the cite I found said she was cybergirl of the month, so that's only 12 per year, yet I believe only (US) playboy playmates are automatic keeps. So that alone shouldn't be sufficient.--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But she was not a playmate. So how on earth would not being a playmate be sufficient for keep?

I'm not saying it is, to be clear.--Milowent (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:N via the ign source and the massive number of poorer sources. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... massive. har har. Did Bali ultimate search thoroughly?--Milowent (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is your weird obsession on the non-availability of reliable in depth sources on non-notable people being my fault? He said "massive" low quality sources. He doesn't know what a reliable source is, clearly. And you parrot him like a less bright beavis. I search and i find nudy pics at playboy, a face book page, a myspace page, a twitterfeed, the wikipedia page, various mirror sites of the nudy pics and the wikipedia page. There is a paragraph about her on a videogame website IGN.com. And that's about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A "less bright beavis", wow that's difficult to attain, but I'm glad you caught the intended low brow humour. I'm not saying anything is your fault, the debate should rightfully be on notability, and this is a marginal one.--Milowent (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bali ultimate, ignoring your insults, the ign.com article is a RS (and 5 paragraphs). [23] would appear to be more like a 1 paragraph review in what would appear to be a reliable source. [24] is a one paragraph article at ign that confirms her "awards". There appear to be a large number of these. Looks close, but I'd certainly say one good source plus many moderate ones is enough. Hobit (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Edg and Blofield's rationale regarding PORNBIO. Unit Anode 01:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Edg and Blofield's rationale. ~~No assertion of notability last time I saw the article.~~ Ok now added, possibly. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now sourced, not a strong keep, but just sufficiently notable.--Milowent (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO. Unit Anode 13:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Fails WP:PORNBIO and her coverage by IGN isn't quite enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral D[edit]

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

Would pass speedy deletion, but I can't find any sources on this person. Not even a Myspace page. Claim to notability is being featured on N.W.A. songs. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable rapper CTJF83 chat 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admiral Delete. No sources, no article. JBsupreme (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding no significant coverage for this rapper; does not appear to meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver (T-Pain album)[edit]

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

The only thing we know about this album is that it is supposed to be called Revolver and that it is supposed to come out this spring, so it fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though i believe the album is notable, it has gone through far too much vandalism and hell, especially since nobody is even sure when it will come out. I Think it should be redirected to T-Pain. Str8cash (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, were going to need this article when the album gets released, so just be patient and keep it here. Its not anybodies fault that its a late release, and theres enough info on it already to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.178.37 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete At this moment I am looking for other sources like an announcement from his label or something like that. when it will comeout it will be notable though andyzweb (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the small but reasonable amount of sources make me challenge those who want to delete it. This link proves that the album is going to be released in some date in 2010, along with some confirmed singles/tracks. There's no reason to delete this page. Ellomate (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed that link and found no mention of "Revolver", or even "Revolve". It proves nothing. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough OFficial information about it. it's msotly speculation and WP:CRYSTAL Alan - talk 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', the album already has 2 singles and there's official confirmation on http://www.nappyboyonline.com/.--DinoAvdic (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your link goes to a 'page not found' on that site.. which obviously proves nothing. Second, the site looks like a blog, not an official source of anything Alan - talk 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Alan - talk 16:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. JBsupreme (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the album already has 2 singles and we even have a release date. That's more info then Dre's Detox, ffs! And "Alankc", nappyboyonline.com is the official site of T-Pains label Nappy Boy and the album has been mentioned plenty of times in there.--DinoAvdic (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branch (graph theory)[edit]

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

Long standing unreferenced tag. The article has '(Graph theory)' in the title but the lead sentence says it's about mathematical logic. I searched for references for graph theory meaning and found "branch set" which is something else. Reference for AD+ formerly given under see also has 'branch' but a different definition. Little context given in the article so it's difficult to carry on. If subject is notable then a complete rewrite seems necessary. RDBury (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or, what amounts to the same thing: redirect to tree (set theory) where the same concept is described more comprehensibly and with a little more context. Then delete the redirect per WP:CSD#R3 (ignoring the part of R3 that says it doesn't apply to articles converted into redirects) since the graph theory part is a misnomer and nobody's going to accidentally type it that way. It's a worthwhile concept to have some material in the encyclopedia about it, but this article doesn't really stand on its own. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confusing article. It's definitely not a graph-related definition, and tree (set theory) seems to describe the same notion, but better explained. Pcap ping 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to tree (set theory)--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plug Label[edit]

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

Non-notable label founded by the one semi-notable artist in the label's roster. If anything, it should just redirect to Kero One if not just outright deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Lacks credible sources to support it online. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about merging, but the label really hasn't done anything to deserve any more mention on Kero One's page, which points out that Plug Label was founded by him. I think a redirect is appropriate. Angryapathy (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoff Abrenica[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Has not done anything unique or lasting in field, unsourced and not seeing anything substantial on google that looks lasting beyond WP:BLP1E. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he's done nothing notable except to appear of some reality show in the Philipenes (and obviously didn't get far). Angryapathy (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music Bio. Appeared in a Filipino reality series. Has been an unreferenced BLP for three years, lacks reliable sources online to support it or indicate notability. He might play the guitar but he is certainly not a notable successful musician which has a claim to an encyclopedia article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroki Kosai[edit]

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

Non-notable astronomer. Sources are a self-published article and a database of asteroids, which violated WP:SYN, most ghits look like scrapes of our article. MBisanz ^talk 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he is notable enough. Even if not based on his discovering of minor planets. articles like this indicate he is a clearly notable figure in Japanese astronomy and is repsonsible for the development of observatories in the country in the 1960s and throughout his career. And he is currently the head of the one of Japan's major observatories and is the author of 9 books/papers in English sources, probably many more in Japanese. I'd say he is notable enough in his given field in Japan, google search indicates he has been active and made discoveries in observatories all over Japan. Also he is a member of the International Astronomical Union which while this doesn't indicate what he has done it shows that in the fields of astronomy he is globally considerered notable enough to gain membership. They don't give membership away to any old amateur as far as I know.. . But it is because he ia major controbutor to astronomical studies as Harvard University relates. Article needs expansion though beyond using a database with reliable publications. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 10,000 members of the IAU, which seems to indicate it isn't that exclusive a membership; Harvard published one of his articles, he isn't an editor of the journal or something like that, the first link looks interesting but I'm having trouble figuring out the reliability of the source. MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks independent sources. Dlabtot (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you look for potential sources? I've founded many reliable independent sources like the Japan Times . There are also like CSA listing of his publications on astronomical subjects with the Astronomical Society of Japan etc.... and the Japanese name search reveals more about the extent of his astronomical publications. Google scholar and books alone indicate this is not a nobody in this field. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be notable. JBsupreme (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of references shown above; we dont have to go by anything so vague as how it might "appear" to individuals here. Thecriteria are supposed to be objective. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? In what way does this WP:BLP article demonstrate individual notability? Furthermore, where is all the non-trivial coverage of this individual by reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few articles, highest cited only 4 times. Searching Google Scholar by the Japanese name provided by Dr Blofeld reveals only four articles. I cannot see how being a prolific discoverer of asteroids makes somebody notable, and the Japan Times article provided by Dr B. just consults him about light pollution. Abductive (reasoning) 23:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known astronomer whose contributions to science resulted in the naming of the minor plant Kosai in his honor [25]. Warrah (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very in-house "award", dontcha think? And well-known? No way. Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough to have someone name a planet after him. Also, you need to check the Japanese news sources, since that's the country he is famous in. The Japanese Wikipedia has more about this guy. [26] Dream Focus 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Wikipedia article says he dropped out of college. Does that go to notability? Abductive (reasoning) 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McKenzie Anderson[edit]

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

Non-notable media personality, sources are a blog and a family website. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks credible sources online. Most sites are only mirrors of wikipedia material. Fails WP:Music Bio. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blofeld is right, only sources are mirrors of WP. I cannot find any mention of him that doesn't include the exact text of the WP page. Angryapathy (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N Dlabtot (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have done a through examination of Google results, and find no additional relevant ones. It is pretty clear that this person exixts, but a notable person who is a "musician, DJ, producer and compose" would be pretty much sure to have online coverage. In some cases one might say that there must be print coverage not online, but not in those fields, i would think. DES ^(talk) 15:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate situation ... DES has tried very hard to find sources and what's there is the best there was, apparently. (thanks for the effort!) If someone can find better sources, we should reconsider but for now, Delete ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. I looked and found… not much. Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eman Abatayo[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music Bio. Appeared in a Filipino reality series. Has been an unreferenced BLP for three years, lacks reliable sources online to support it or indicate notability. He might play the guitar but he is certainly not a notable successful musician which has a claim to an encyclopedia article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trae Lindley[edit]

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

Completely non notable boy who appeared one off in series starring Paris Hilton. Started by nobody but a fan of the series and took a liking to him and is thus their only edit to wikipedia. Lacks coverage and fails WP:BIO with flying colors basically because he has done nothing. His only claim to "fame" is being mentioned in FOx News and NY Post about the "airhead star of Fox's reality series "The Simple Life," falling hard for 18-year-old Arkansas kid Trae Lindley". Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He appeared in one episode of The Simple Life which got him some brief mentions. That's it. There is no significant coverage that would establish him as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason to keep that I can see. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of BLP1E. He's had his 15 minutes of fame. Fences&Windows 17:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone above. Airplaneman ^talk 03:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He was mentioned a bit in this article, but I can't find anything else that makes him independently notable. Certainly seems like a non-notable BLP1E case to me. PDCook (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill stealing[edit]

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

Lacks any reliable sources and possibly contains WP:ORIGINAL. It asserts a lot of things as Facts without backing up with citations. andyzweb (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen this term before. I'm certain that something as a source can be found. It's too prominent an MMORPG topic not to. Chutznik (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is inherently biased by referring to kill assists as "kill stealing". Also, it's basically a dictionary definition and should be put in Wiktionary instead.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Griefer per SharkD, due to the inherently negative connotation of the term.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently just a dicdef. What's missing are sources that discuss the actual concept, not merely use the phrase. Rhomb (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows some results. [27] is a good one. Google books search has 89 results, some of them relevant to "kill stealing" in games. "Kill stealing" itself gets 31,800 results in a regular Google search, showing a lot of people use that expression. Dream Focus 22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Mentions in books and in news sources BBC,Cnet Wired clearly show it is a well established and widespread video gaming concept. ¨¨ victor falk 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it has received media coverage, there's no exact definition of "kill stealing" because of how POV the subject is. Additionally, to make this more than just a definition/how-to-avoid, one would need to somehow research the history behind the phrase and be able to explain why the subject is important, which in this case is likely impossible. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for history/importance, it has influenced game design in that developers have modified their games specifically to prevent this from happening. This is discussed in the case of EverQuest in one of the linked-to articles. SharkD Talk 08:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism unsupported by independent references: neither notable nor verifiable. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge (a first AFAIK) - I'm satisfied that the provided sources show that there is a single, consistent definition for the term viz a viz griefing. However, no sources have been provided yet that deal exclusively with the topic, and there's not really enough material to fill anything more than a Wiktionary article. If an article on game terminology exists, then I would suggest merging it there , otherwise merge it with Griefer. SharkD Talk 09:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And condense too. There seems to be more material in the article than any of the sources I've looked at. SharkD Talk 08:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Griefer isn't a bad idea. Ganking, Farming and Botting, all game-term articles that were deleted in the past, have had sections of information incorporated into Griefer, or so I understand. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jelly Soup. JBsupreme (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable, being covered by numerous sources. The rest is a matter of article editing and improvement which is not achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is there anything that explains the origin of the term past that of a dictionary definition?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its a modern day social phenomenon, and a key reason why some games fail. A major part of any multiplayer game development. I'm sure any books written about how games are made, or social interaction through massive player online games, would mention it. Dream Focus 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the sources, I would suggest merging it instead, because the practice of kill stealing as described in MMOs is basically griefing.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, griefing is doing something to make others miserable, because you enjoy bullying them. Kill stealing is something you do simply because you want something, and don't care who it rightfully belongs to. A bully and a thief are two different things, although yes, sometimes bullies take things from you also. Dream Focus 00:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters why you kill steal -- being a bully or just greedy (are the two even exclusive?) Victims would probably call it griefing if the behavior isn't stopped. SharkD Talk 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thieving is obviously being a bully, since you're doing it with knowledge that it was someone else's kill and they 'deserved' it. That makes others miserable, and it's griefing, even if it's within the bounds of the game, otherwise it wouldn't be such a phenomenon in the first place.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of Mutilation[edit]

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

This demo, limited to 500 copies, does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Demos are generally not notable, and I can find no significant coverage for this recording in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: This release, while limited, is important for archival purposes as it is the first ever release of professionally recorded material by the band and is therefore just as relevant as any other EP or Album put out by the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagozzino (talk • contribs) 18:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NALBUMS with miles to spare. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge: Same comment here as the one I made in this related discussion. There is a difference between "notable" and "of historical interest." Verifiable text of interest can be merged to band page. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikipedia isn't a personal archive or fansite Alan - talk 23:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7 by User:Nyttend. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of God's Child Learning Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Secret of God's Child Learning Center

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

Looks non-notable or hoax. Prod contested so brought to AfD Polargeo (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax so far as I can see. However, it seems to have been spammed right across sulit.com.ph unless I'm reading things wrongly. I can't quite work out what that place is. There's enough of the start of the article here in the Google blurb for it not to be a pull 'em in device. Search was for "Secret of God's Child Learning Center". I can't find any reliable references. To me, this looks like a spam attempt on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7'd - no claim to notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vengalath[edit]

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

Too small in area to be notable. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - couldn't find anything on Google. Chutznik (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a housing area is not a location, it is in a location. ¨¨ victor falk 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete A "housing location" where 8 people live, including one "PhD aspirant"? Seriously. Let's break out the snow shovel already. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a housing area ??!!! :-). shouldn't this be a speedy delete candidate?--Sodabottle (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LOL, its beginning to feel a lot like Christmas... JBsupreme (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local neighborhood consisting of six houses? Salih (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuo Nishikata[edit]

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

head of a non-notable organization and former part time teacher fails WP:BIO, sourced to linkedin, etc. Sufficiently non-notable that we don't even know when or where this person was born red flags of nn in modern biographies... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur; I can't find sources that show the notability of the subject. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced BLP and non-notable. fetchcomms☛ 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.T.[edit]

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

F.A.T is presumably a club/group within the Alpha Secondary School. Not notable with respect to its background, current work, and also due to lack of reliable sources. Request delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a CSD A7 in disguise (claiming to be "elite") but it still is one. ;-) JBsupreme (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete csd a7, no claim to notability. ¨¨ victor falk 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there objections to a redirect to FAT#FAT? That section of Fat, the disambiguation page, focuses on the acronym. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support a delete+redirect to that section, sure. JBsupreme (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can't redirect. Then we should have all E.n.g.l.i.s.h w.o.r.d.s o.n W.I.K.I.P.E.D.I.A a.s a.c.r.o.n.y.m.s :) ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, you have a point with respect to the F.A.T acronym already existing on the disambig page of FAT. So I'm ok with a redirect. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Grub[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP Defender of torch (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline A7. Chutznik (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If only notable for one game, and no further info provided, then I don't see the point on having an article. Pcap ping 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I added two game titles R/C Stunt Copter, and Zoboomafoo: Leapin' Lemurs!1, after researching more there really isn't anything on the company. Commidus23 (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKnight[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Defender of torch (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of reliable sources online. Google search would indicate more notable people in different occupations under the same name. Myspace is not an adequate source. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN artist. CTJF83 chat 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this person; does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:N. Gongshow ^Talk 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g7, see (deleted) article talk page. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index.of[edit]

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

Should really be speedy deleted, but it doesn't seem to fit in any of the criteria. Most of the relevant info about Google searches is already in Google search. XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Karnataka fate[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to predict fate of a region. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSOAP. This is really a coatrack and the topic is covered in an encyclopaedic manner within North Karnataka and Belgaum border dispute. This article on the other hand synthesis sources (most already included in the other two) to advance a political position. Merging anything is really a bad idea as it would require a complete rewrite to do that and the resulting redirect is more than problematic. –SpacemanSpiff 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unencyclopedic collection of issues speculating on the fate of North Karnataka. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spaceman & deepak. ¨¨ victor falk 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spaceman. There is very little to merge: North Karnataka covers everything of interest already, and the parts relevant to Belgaum border dispute look like a POV-driven content fork. This article is actually about "justifying" a POV relevant only to political issues in Karnataka. rudra (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per spaceman and deepak. Any encyclopedic content is properly added to North Karnataka. This article is unavoidably predictive and non-neutral, as well as inherently running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COATRACK/CRYSTAL issues cannot be resolved, no merge. JBsupreme (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another joke in the name of creation of small states. Hometech (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - article is essentially the same as the version deleted by the first AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KolibriOS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant independent coverage for this software. Pcap ping 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this was deleted once before at AfD, so I'm going to speedy it. I managed to find a reference to add to the software this is a fork of, MenuetOS, but there's no mention of KolibriOS in that ref, so even a merge looks WP:UNDUE. A more recent, 2009 story on MenuetOS doesn't mention this fork either. Pcap ping 17:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy sounds good, otherwise it still fails GNG to this day. JBsupreme (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triplet cities[edit]

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

Triplet cities is a new article which suggests that the importance of Bloomington, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota (together known as the Twin Cities), will lead to a change in the latter reference from "Twin Cities" to "Triplet Cities". Of the three cited references, only one would likely be considered a reliable source, and asks rhetorically: “Could the Twin Cities someday be known as the Triplet Cities? Some think so.” This article fails WP:CRYSTAL, as there is nothing to indicate the renaming is "almost certain to take place". Kablammo (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems the whole article is specifically crystal balling and speculative. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per crystal, sounds to me like Bloomington wants to become a more notable city by piggy backing off the other 2. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly speculative. JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a grand total of... 6 (six) ghits: [28]
Delete. Agree with the above; if the term comes into widespread use, then the better course would be to expand the Twin Cities article to discuss the metamorphosis. But that day seems a long way off, as indicated above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If anything this would be too clumsy a term, as most three-city metros are colloquially as Tri Cities. This meanwhile is a term only used by suburban boosters intended to bring their newer city into the old line fold. No sources. Nate • (chatter) 11:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found a small handful of prior references, from a columnist or commentator engaging in passing speculation, but without ever seriously suggesting a rename. (Most uses of the term are for other areas.) It is unlikely that the public would embrace this clumsy term, and there is little danger of renaming the Minnesota Twins. This article was started by one editor, bearing the same name as the article, with no other edits; the editor was notified of this discussion when it began, and has not participated. Kablammo (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azian Innocent Tano[edit]

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

Tano did not play at Serie A, not made professional debut yet; Segunda División B is not a fully-pro league and fails WP:athlete Matthew_hk t c 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to the article he has played three matches for Udinese, which would make him notable. However, I can't find any evidence that this information is correct. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He played a lots, but at youth teams. [29] Nowadays people always claimed the youth player played his professional debut in order to survived form deletion.Matthew_hk t c 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by NawlinWiki. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC. Chutznik (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otillio Arellano[edit]

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

I searched and really could not find anything of substance about this architect. The article said he designed a famous theater, but that theater was actually designed by his uncle (Otillio was involved in the restoration according to a nonauthoritative site). The references I found said he designed a chain of gas stations and the entrance to the 1953 Manila World’s Fair. Nothing in Google Books or Google News. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signs (International Journal of Semiotics)[edit]

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

Relatively new journal, no indications yet of any notability. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is three years old, which is plenty for me. However impact factor and indexing would settle the issue of notability for me. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A journal can indeed after 3 years be indexed/abstracted in some major services. There is, however, no evidence at all that this is the case here. In addition, if I look at the layout of the published articles (basically just manuscripts in PDF format, with an added by-line), this journal definitely has the feel of something that a group of academics has put together in their spare time. There is nothing against that and this doesn't say anything about notability, of course, but it does mean that there is no dedicated publisher behind this who will see to it that the journal gets included in databases and such. The number of articles published is very low (especially given those three years): 1 article up till now in 2010, 7 in 2009, 9 in 2008, and 3 in 2007. For most journals, that would be just 1-2 issues... --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of indexing is a serious concern for a new journal like this. Impact factor is likely to be irrelevant, because this is in the humanities; WoS, which is of course very big on trying to promote impact factor whenever possible, nonetheless refuses to calculate it in the humanities, on the grounds that a/ most of the relevant citing sources are books, and b/ citations in that field tend to take a very long time to show up. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per DGG. Alright well if there's no indexing, then notability is indeed questionable. A shame it wasn't indexed, I'm always saddened by the deletion of legit endeavors. No prejudice against recreation if the journal gets indexed in a major service in the future. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what semiotics is, but I can see that its journals are in the midst of a scramble competition. Wikipedia is not the proper arena for this competition. I see no sources and no sign that this journal is notable, important or appropriate for an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See semiotics (study of signs). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 17:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogi Ogas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is, essentially, a WP:BLP1E. The only significant coverage relates to the subject's appearance on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, where he used cognitive science to work out the answers; however, he did not actually win the $1,000,000. He later competed on Grand Slam, but he didn't win that either, and there's very little mention of it in reliable sources. In 2009, he was involved in a controversy with fanfiction writers on livejournal, but there's no reliable sources about that either ~~(I removed the section)~~. Virtually all the coverage here is related to his Millionaire appearance, with no evidence of long-term notability; I think he therefore qualifies for deletion as a WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is misrepresenting some of the material he or she removed: the part about the livejournal controversy included a sourced statement that he had signed a six-figure book contract. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, really? I didn't see any reliable independent sourcing there, but I've restored the section for the purposes of this AFD. If you're referring to the Publishers Marketplace link, I can't read it as it's behind a paywall. Robofish (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article may stylistically focus on his appearance on Millionaire as a contestant, that is not the only event for which he is notable. Regardless, there are sufficient sources presented to satisfy WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his actual accomplishments seem a little slim, but that's not the standard we should be working with here. Someone is notable if they have been noted in reliable sources, regardless of our own opinions of the importance of their accomplishments. By that standard he clearly passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close call. I don't think Ogas is really notable for anything other than Millionaire. Had he never appeared on the show, I am morally certain there would be no article about him. Despite this, John Carpenter is basically a BLP1E also. I understand the argument to distinguish 1 million dollar winners from 500,000 dollar winners, but with some other sources the article seems just okay. Chutznik (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once a topic is notable then it is always notable. Once an entry passes WP:Notability is always does so into the future, so it stays in. There are enough sources here to establish that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could use some more info in the article.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Keep per notability and coverage for more than just one thing. If the nominator is concerned about the current article being narowly focused, that's a reason to expand the focus... not delete the article. WP:ATD anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non-admin closure, the nomination was withdrawn. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Marketplace[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please tell us what WP:BEFORE work you may have done? Specifically, criterion 9, which states: "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist"? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply A simple google search on the phrase "Norwich Marketplace" shows no signs of any sources for this place name. That, coupled with the author's penchant for creating articles about non-notable places, let me to conclude that this was simply one further such creation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No sources? My own google search revealed this BBC story, second from the top. I also see other cites that suggest that this was a historically significant area in Norwich. I think your efforts to stop the editor's spamming and (claimed) puppeteering may have coloured your vision a bit on this one. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That source did not show up in my Google search. Perhaps this is a localization thing, where Google in the US produces different results that Google in other parts of the world. Please remember to assume good faith. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But it's hard to see how a Google search from Canada (where I am) could deliver different "local" results for a marketplace UK. You might want to consider withdrawing or revising this nomination, as the rationale is patently flawed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after EC) Comment See
Granted not exactly celar notability, but a bit more than "no signs of any sources" IMO DES ^(talk) 17:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Perhaps I should have said no signs of significant sources, as none of the references thus far provided give any indication of notability. The first is about a shop that happens to be in the marketplace, and the political views of the shopkeeper. The second is a guide listing for a restaurant that happens to be near the marketplace. The third (perhaps the most significant, but still not considered a reliable source) is a travel blog. The fourth is a government document stating that the public space near the market place is to be improved, and the fifth states that there was a market place in medieval times. I'm glad someone could find sources that I could not, but if these are the best sources available, I can't change my opinion on the merits of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "Norwich Market" provides some interesting results, including a book cite that this market actually dates back to Norman times. I've added the cite and moved the article to Norwich Market, which is also the name used on its official site. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn due to Shawn in Montreal's diligence. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Wow. One of the most significant and historic markets in Britain, dating back to at least the 1200s.[30] My 2 second google serach also brought up the BBC article 2nd from the top. The quickest I've been able to set up an AfD is 1 minute. I too question the nom's adherence to WP:BEFORE.--Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Shawn in Montreal's work. DES ^(talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo[edit]

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

This article is very long but nothing in it seems to add up to notability. This woman seems to have had a moderately successful career as a publicist, but it doesn't seem like anything special. Most of the references are affiliated with the subject. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity bio. sourcing looks impressive but only trivial mentions( or none at all) in independent sources listed.--Rootless Juice (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BJ McKie[edit]

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

Never played at the highest league of his sport and it is unlikely he ever will, fails WP:ATHLETE. MBisanz ^talk 14:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. It's somewhat notable that he is the school's all-time high scorer, but I'm not finding any significant coverage of that in reliable independent sources. If someone can find additional sources, I might reconsider as he certainly seems to be an above average player. PDCook (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I think he passes WP:ATHLETE with his European career. I wish there were better sources about him, though...other than player profiles. PDCook (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of newspaper articles about him: [31], [32], [33], etc. However, I can't immediately access most of them. Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Yeah per Pdcook, reliable sources like this do exist and he does seem to be of more note than other college basketball players but he seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question - He played for the NBA Development League, which I don't think we can call "fully professional." The article was recently updated indicating that he was "released from Hapoel_Afula in the Israeli Basketball Super League." The given reference was a Twitter update, which I removed and tagged as citation needed. Nonetheless, is the Israeli Basketball Super League "fully professional"? I am not familiar with international basketball. PDCook (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the all-time leading scorer for an ACC team is pretty good in and of itself. McKie has also had a decent overseas career, particularly in Europe, where he was a Basketball Bundesliga All-Star: [34] (Note - You only get to look at that site for free once a day, so make it count!) He did play in Israel, which should also count towards notability. They have one of the best known leagues outside of the US, and their teams occasionally play against NBA teams. Zagalejo^^^ 22:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since my connection seems to have used up its quota, [35] is an archived version of that page. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are those European teams considered "fully professional"? If, so he passes WP:Athlete outright. PDCook (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certain that Israel would count; players can make millions of dollars there (eg, [36]). I don't have a clear idea how players are compensated in Germany, but the league attracts a number of ex-NBA players, so I'm guessing they make a decent living. Zagalejo^^^ 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Basketball Bundesliga is fully pro, passes WP:ATHLETE. matt91486 (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes athlete per above. Ikip 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Jeffrey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A player in U20 World Cup cannot qualified the criteria to a notable footballer. He may or may not became a professional footballer, in although he already signed a professional contract. Matthew_hk t c 14:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, only Olympic games are qualified a notable event. This is the special case for the American who played at Olympics and high school soccer, but never became a professional player, and became a waiter. Matthew_hk t c 14:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG [37], [38]. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Caps for youth national teams do not confer notability (the olympics notwithstanding), and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. The only coverage on him that's out there are match reports of U-20 matches, reports of his transfer to Mainz, and some player profiles, and in my opinion that does not classify as significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if somebody passes GNG but fails ATHLETE, shouldn't the article be kept? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jeffrey was the subject of a full page article in a German newspaper (see article for detail) and has been the subject of several articles in other publications like goal.com and vi.nl. Much of the coverage is fairly trivial, but I think there is enough detailed coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The fact that he hasn't played football in a fully-pro league is irrelevant - and he has fairly significant accomplishments for a 19-year old which have led to the media coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I understand the problems when considering WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL, but this is just silly. Unless he suddenly quits football, dies or gets an injury which prevents him from playing, he will quite easily become notable soon and the page will be recreated anyway. Note that if he had played one minute at Club Brugge he would be notable (and moreover, if he were to die right now with one minute played he would still be notable). The notability criteria were set up to prevent articles to be created about any John Doe who has ever kicked a ball, but seriously: Jeffrey played in two youth world cups, two youth CONCACAF cups and just signed his second professional contract with a European first division team! Deleting is just being WP:BURO and again, you KNOW it will be recreated anyway because sooner or later he will play. On top of that, I also agree with WP:GNG ~~although I would not object to maybe another reference or two~~ (not anymore, enough now ^^). Pelotas^talk 18:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATHLETE is a supplement to the GNG, not a replacement. Significant coverage of his U-20 exploits in reliable sources is enough to confer notability. It's counterproductive to repeatedly delete biographies for up-and-coming players on technicalities like having not made any professional appearances yet when existing coverage would suggest that to be inevitable in the long run. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He will became a professional footballer itself is crystal box. May be tomorrow i find some "superstar"in World Youth Cup but not became professional footballer. Age 20 is too young to determine he can play football professionally. Matthew_hk t c 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But age 20 isn't too young to pass WP:GNG. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carlos Eduardo Dutra de Oliveira of 2007 edition, did played a national league match. claiming GNG is useless. Many player with some media coverage deleted based on the consensus Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Revering the consensus with GNG only make the notability criteria collapsed. Matthew_hk t c 19:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example some Italian youth products with some media coverage how "talent" he is, it that pass? Matthew_hk t c 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Kelvin Bossman, an article at FIFA.com[39], moved to a non-professional league, notable?! Matthew_hk t c 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People fails WP:ATHLETE but passed GNG is someone likes Simone Brunelli, who sued Inter his former club, and said his signature on transfer docs is not his, and one of the player inflated by Milan many times to gain false profit in player exchange. He did not play his professional debut. But for Jeffrey, may youth team player of notable club have a lots of media coverage, but no means he is notable enough. Matthew_hk t c 20:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTY/Notability specifically states, "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." The GNG is the important test, and while not everyone may agree that Jeffrey has significant enough coverage to pass it, if he does, the article should be kept. Jogurney (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should note that Jeffrey has had some significant accomplishments - (1) US high school soccer player of the year in 2008; (2) played at FIFA U-17 & U-20 World Cup finals, scoring once; (3) signing three-year professional contract with Brugge (Belgian First Division); and (4) signing three-year professional contract with Mainz (1. Bundesliga). None of these individually is a huge accomplishment, but all of them combined by the age of 19 is pretty unusual/notable. The Dallas Morning News and Allgemeine Zeitung dedicated space to his exploits. Yanks Abroad.com and Goal.com have covered him fairly often as well. It's not accurate to say he has accomplished little. Jogurney (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another example is Ronald Huth, played for Liverpool FC (big enough?) but he still yet to made a debut, for a small club Italian Serie B. Matthew_hk t c 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Matthew_hk thanks for your examples, but those are rather the exception than the rule no? Also, did all those players have the same accomplishments as given by Jogurney, or was it more some guy making a name for himself by writing a report saying that they have found a "talent"? I think the fact that this article has been deleted about 1.5 years ago after a long discussion proves that Jared Jeffrey is still regarded as a big talent and not some guy who will suddenly disappear. Pelotas^talk 23:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Technically would seem to fail WP:ATHLETE a the moment but I think it is valid based on reliable sources and coverage and would probably be a waste of time deleting it only to have it restarted in a worse state later when he "officially" passes pro requirements. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't matter if he meets WP:ATHLETE or not, as he meets WP:GNG. But even if he didn't, given the amount of media speculation that he'll be playing very shortly, it seems counter-productive to delete the article at this point. As article was previously deleted, the edit history for the previous version should be restored. Nfitz (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably just passes the general notability guidelines. Failing WP:Athlete is not a reason for deletion if there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Camw (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writers Exchange E-Publishing[edit]

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

Spammy article about a minor e-publishing company. Nothing to show that it's in any way notable - it's had one author who won a minor prize, which doesn't in itself confer notability. The links are mainly promotional and certainly don't represent significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG, WP:RS, WP:SPAM andy (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, would also appear to be non-notable web content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Withdrawn nom, NAC. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Shakes[edit]

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

One mention in rolling stone, otherwise a myspace band. Gigs (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [40], [41] in Google News. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a sourced reception section based on the Rolling Stone piece plus this Allmusic review. I did not yet look at the references found by TheWeakWilled but once I do I will try to also incorporate them into the article. I believe that the group meets WP:GNG with the sources that have been incorporated. J04n(talk page) 14:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Thanks, I didn't notice those sources when I did some searches. Gigs (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot. I have moved this content to User:Marlo0921/Palace Proclamation. Content was apparently a synopsis of an original story by that editor. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palace Proclamation[edit]

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

Sorry to bring this here, but prod declined and no real speedy category applies. Someone has posted an outline of their story, which they appear to claim is a novel, although there's no sign of any story beyond this outline. This doesn't require a week of discussion, suggest speedy userfy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with userifying this, though asking at the author's talk page if this would be acceptable could have been tried before coming to AfD. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. He's already removed a speedy tag and ignored a prod tag, I didn't see the point of stacking more on when I can't userfy anyhow. Hairhorn (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor that PRODed the article, agree speedy userfy looks to be the best course of action.--blue520 14:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Eli Cohen[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable artist per WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where to begin? This is completely unsourced--we only have his blogs and the word of the article author on the article talk page that this is "100% true". Obviously, this fails WP:V. If you were to remove all the WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL wording, you'd be left with "Eli Cohen was born in 1983 in Forest Hills, NY." Utterly fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. All ghits point to the spy Eli Cohen, a notable and fascinating man in his own right. This Eli Cohen, on the other hand, although we are assured he is a "Da Vinci of the 21st Century", is not notable. (Some free advice to the artist and/or article creator: "Da Vinci is not his last name, it's where he's from. You can call him Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci. Da Vinci just means "of Vinci". Dan Brown is wrong on many, many points. The title is just the start). And what's with the article title? "The Art of Eli Cohen"? The strongest of possible deletes. freshacconci talktalk 13:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wait: can't we just speedy this thing as a copyvio of this? freshacconci talktalk 13:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. MuffledThud (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as such. andy (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus4Emu[edit]

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

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this is an emulator of the Commodore Plus/4 8-bit computer. Appears to be by the same people who made the EP128Emu emulator, also up for deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EP128Emu[edit]

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

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP32

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Note that this is an emulator of the Enterprise 128 8-bit computer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What significant coverages can you find for Commodore and Spectrum emulation softwares? --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: Third party source here This is not a self published material.
- The link goes to the website of FLOSSzine, which bills itself as a fanzine. The cover and table of contents are provided, and EP128Emu does indeed appear to be listed. However, zines are typically non-professional self-published works, which can't generally be used to establish notability. What evidence do you have supporting your claim that FLOSSzine is a reliable source establishing notability? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do other articles on emulation softwares (eg. Commodore, Spectrum) fulfill your requirement? I don't think so. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some of them do, and some of them don't. If you have any particular Wikipedia articles in mind which you think don't qualify as notable and verifiable through reliable sources, then please either discuss this on their respective talk pages, or, if you're fairly sure of yourself, submit them directly to Articles for Deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "What evidence do you have supporting your claim that FLOSSzine is a reliable source establishing notability?" Though zines can't GENERALLY be used to establish notability, how do you prove this zine also can't be used to establish notability? Do you speak Hungarian? "Generally" is not the same as "always". You should study these Flosszine papers to prove your statement citing from and referring to its content. You don't have to be expert of the area but at least you should speak Hungarian. It is really unjust that somebody like you decide to delete this article who neither speaks Hungarian nor knows anything about Z80 computers and their emulators. It would be very difficult for me to explain why I think Flosszine can establish the software's notability. You should study the Flosszine. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - My, but you have a penchant for moving the goalposts! First one has to be an expert on emulators and 1980s computers to judge the noteworthiness of the article, and now one has to speak Hungarian as well! Along with this is your implicit assumption that no one contributing to this deletion discussion could possibly meet all three criteria. Well, contrary to your expectations, I happen to be an expert on 1980s computers, am well versed in emulation thereof, speak Hungarian fairly well, and, as an added bonus, am also familiar with Wikipedia's policies on notability. And no, nothing on the FLOSSzine website leads me to believe that it counts as a reliable source establishing notability for EP128Emu. I trust this now satisfies your appeal to authority-based arguments, and that you will therefore change your !vote to delete. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it's you who are moving the goalpoints. In a personal message here you originally mentioned that a SELF-PUBLISHED Flosszine was not very reliable source. Then I said it was not self-made. Then you said the problem was not that it was self made but that it is a Flosszine. Írod, beszélsz magyarul. Szóval azért remélem, nem Te egyedül fogod eldönteni, a cikket valóban törölni kell-e, remélem, több ember szavazata fog dönteni, és köztük olyanok is lesznek, akik már láttak bekapcsolva Enterprise számítógépet és az emulátor debuggerét is használták már, és a gép történetéről (tehát jelentőségéről) is tudnak valamit. :D Attól, hogy erről a gépről kevesebben tudnak, mint pl. a C64-ről és ezért az emulátorát is kevésbé ismerik, nem írnak róla pl. könyvet, még nem feltétlen kevésbé jelentős. Az, hogy EP-re kevesebb szoftver jelent meg, mint pl. C64-re, nem minősíti magát a gépet, így az emulátort sem. Nyilván könnyebben írnak cikkeket is olyan dologról, ami jobban szem előtt van. Ebből nem következik, hogy ami nincs szem előtt, az már kevésbé jelentős. Mivel Magyarországon adtak el talán a legtöbbet ebből a gépből és a magyarok veszik a fáradságot és foglalkoznak vele, a friss "szakirodalom" nagy része főleg magyarul hozzáférhető. Ha el akarod dönteni, hogy ez a Flosszine mennyire hiteles, akkor tudnod kell magyarul. De ha annyira akarod (márpedig ezt nagyon akarod, azt látom), akkor töröltesd a cikket. --Szipucsu (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Igen, beszélek magyarul, de nem itt. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: How many emulators exist that can emulate 3 machines (Enterprise, CPC, Spectrum) both in Windows and in Linux? --Szipucsu (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is. Very few CPC and Spectrum emulators exist for Linux. (Not to mention Enterprise emulator.) If you don't accept its relevancy then you are not familiar in this area. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability, which discusses what factors to take into consideration for determining whether a subject is important enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You will note that "number of machines emulated" is not one of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: How many emulators (of any computer) have a debugger like this? --Szipucsu (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is. This statement of yours also proves you are not familiar in this area. Do you know at all what a debugger is? Maybe all emulation softwares have some debugger, its usability is not irrelevant at all from the point of view of its notability. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability, which discusses what factors to take into consideration for determining whether a subject is important enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You will note that "presence of a debugger" is not one of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: I think the person who nominated this article for deletion is not an expert of old computers and their emulators. Only an expert could tell if this software is notable enough or not. To nominate the article for deletion you should be an expert of this area. Without finding any expert and having him check the notability of this software the article is not to be deleted. Enterprise is a computer like CPC, Spectrum or Commodore even if not so known; it was known in many countries where people use the emulator. That's why its emulator is also important. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If only an expert is qualified to determine the notability of a subject, then that subject cannot possibly be encyclopedic. We are writing a general-purpose encyclopedia here, not an experts' reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This way all the emulation software articles should be deleted and many-many articles. You don't have to be an expert but at least know something about Enterprise computer. Less people know Enterprise than C64 or ZX Spectrum but it is not a reason for not letting room for this computer and its emulator on a general-purpose encyclopedia. Enterprise 64/128 was made in the UK and sold in more countries in the '80s. Its emulator is as important as the Commodore, Spectrum etc. emulators. I am not an expert of this area either but at least I have some basic knowledge of the 1980's computers and their emulators. If you were not familiar in the history then you would delete the articles on the details of certain historical events? 1980's computers and their emulators do have room in the Wikipedia. If Enterprise were a computer I made and only my family used it and its emulator I would understand what you are talking about but EP is an internationally known computer as ZX Spectrum and Commodore. All the 1980's emulation software do have room in the Wiki. It is not an objective approach that Enterprise is less important because it is less known. greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I agree that "many, many" articles need to be deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia's policies. But certainly not all the emulation software articles; just the non-notable ones. Have you actually read Wikipedia:Notability? If so, you would have learned that it is not necessary to be an expert in a particular subject to determine whether or not that subject meets the notability requirements. –Psychonaut (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please answer my question: as for the other emulation softwares for 1980's computers, what reliable sources do you think they are supported with? Please name some specific examples. Which of them are notable and why? Another question is if so many articles on emulators need deletion, is there any need for Emulator category on Wikipedia? greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your question is not relevant to this debate, so this is not the place to answer it. I have already repeatedly referred you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources. Any article, whether it deals with an emulator or not, must meet these guidelines in order to remain on Wikipedia. If you find an article that you feel is not supported by the requisite sources, you should nominate it for deletion. The fact that someone hasn't done so yet is not an argument for keeping this article—please refer to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO DELETE. If this is ever to come back to Wikipedia, we are going to need something: evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JavaGB[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. Very few Google hits; can't find any independent third-party reviews or other coverage from reliable sources. The software's developer appears to be this article's primary author. Psychonaut (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising made by the developer. Alexius08 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems really uncontroversial given the zero hits in news and books, WP:PROD would have worked. Pcap ping 23:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non-notable spam/COI --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JME C64[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. Very few Google hits; can't find any independent third-party reviews or other coverage from reliable sources. The software's developer appears to be this article's primary author. Psychonaut (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising made by the developer. Alexius08 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage besides software catalogs. Pcap ping 23:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Jukebox[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable audio player. Can't find any third-party independent sources. Psychonaut (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crap. Chutznik (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It seems to be included in quite a few distros, but I cannot locate any independent reviews or discussions. LotLE×talk 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [42]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Festastic[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable music player. Psychonaut (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Chutznik (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No trace of independent coverage. Pcap ping 19:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Asherson Bartram[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this individual meets general notability guidelines, nothing in gnews or scholar for either names, can see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to suggest that she meets WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC either. If something can be found that changes that then fine, but it's a concern that the article has been written by someone who appears to be related to the subject and they removed a prod notice with no explanation. Beloved Freak 12:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails under WP:ACADEMIC as I can't see her having any substantial impact on her field. iPatrickQuinn ^(Talk) 13:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BIO; evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, major ghits are commercial for her. MiRroar (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youki (media player)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software, still in early alpha (version 0.05). Can't find any independent third-party sources. Psychonaut (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 21:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baligród massacre[edit]

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

42 people killed by a hostile army in a war zone is not notable Taivo (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: Even though it's been listed somewhere on a county history or on a monument still doesn't make it notable. It makes it verifiable, but not notable. I am listed in various publications, but that doesn't make me notable--it just makes me verifiable. Wikipedia doesn't give an article to every verifiable fact or event, nor should it. (Taivo (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I don't see how the encyclopedia could be improved by deleting this information. Certainly it needs rewriting; perhaps it could be merged into another article which covers these events more comprehensively.--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merging of this information at some article like "Massacres in the Poland/Ukraine conflict" would be appropriate, but an individual article on each massacre is inappropriate. When two sentences is all the information that an event can generate, it's too non-notable for a separate article. The series of strikes and counterstrikes between Poland and Ukraine is notable, but not a separate article for each and every event in that long, sad affair. (Taivo (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- (Taivo (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - mass (not serial) murders of civilians have been kept in the past. If sourceable, this should be kept as notable. One murder is a tragedy, 42 murders is a horror. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your links don't go to any examples. 42 civilian deaths would be notable if it was not in a war zone during wartime. That's the problem. This isn't something happening in peaceful Nebraska, but between two groups of people fighting it out in a war zone. You've got to get your perspective right here. Write an article on Polish/Ukrainian massacres and include all of them there. That's notable. This is still not notable because it happened in a war zone. (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep The proper way of handling Polish/Ukrainian massacres of this magnitude is to include an article on each of them, just as elsewhere. I do not see that being in a war zone has ever been formally proposed as a reason for not having an article. I can see the common sense of not having every individual death, or even small incident, unless there were some special feature or extensive coverage, but I do not see any rationale why a massacre of civilians in one place or time is less notable than in another. This has been claimed as a policy before:, but I can find no such standard practice. Nor do I think there ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name another example besides the Polish/Ukrainian one where every single small massacre has been listed individually? This is akin to listing every individual city where Germans rounded up Jews as a separate article. It was a series, a cycle of violence. As a series, it is notable. Each individual action in that series is not notable. 42 people killed in wartime in a war zone is not "this magnitude". Do we list every single bombing action over Germany separately with the number of civilian casualties listed for each day and each target? No. WWII was a war. Civilians get killed in wars. Thousands of Jews were killed in Rivne when the Germans came in. Is there a separate article for that? No. It is of a far greater magnitude than the regrettable 42 deaths in Baligród, so why are you claiming that Baligród is worse than each individual city that was purged of hundreds and thousands of people by the Germans or each individual city that was bombed on each day it was bombed? You have to keep your perspective. (Taivo (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Kotniski, Bearian, DDG. Writegeist (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree per Kotniski, Bearian, DGG. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article barely longer than reference at Baligród It is ridiculous to have an article that is not really longer than the mention of the event at the main city article. It seems to be more POV pushing to have a separate article that contains two sentences rather than simply incorporate those two sentences into the article at Baligród. No evidence has been presented to justify this article's separate existence. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. This stub will grow. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will this stub grow? Nothing else happened there. Are you going to list all 42 names? The Ukrainians entered the town and killed people in a single event. There's nothing to grow there. It didn't happen over an extended time. The only things that would make this longer would be a listing of how every Ukrainian killed every Pole. Now you're really talking NOT NOTABLE. (Taivo (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, presuming some historical discussion of the massacre has taken place. It's hard to imagine why a historically documented massacre would not be considered notable. Everyking (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So will you support a separate article for each and every bombing raid over Germany during WWII in which civilians were killed? Will you support a separate article for each and every German killing a Jew? That's what you're promoting here. This single incident is not notable. It is part of a notable series, but 42 people killed in a war zone by a hostile army just isn't notable. People get killed by hostile armies in wartime. There is no visible perspective in these comments. (Taivo (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

- Like I said—presuming there's historical discussion. An air raid should be considered notable if it's been discussed as a separate event. I don't agree with the philosophy of discounting the importance of events because they occurred during a war. Everyking (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where this has been discussed as a separate historical event (your criterion). The link in the references doesn't go anywhere, so I can only assume that it's bogus. The only other reference is to a work that covers the entire Polish-Ukrainian conflict. That's been my point all along--this deserves to be mentioned in an article that covers the conflict as a whole, but two sentences is not notable enough for a separate article. (Taivo (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If you think that these two sentences about Balogród are actually notable, then I suggest you look at this, which takes nothing and turns it into much more than you can ever write for the Baligród massacre. Notability of wartime incidents is entirely based on utilizing proper perspective. 42 dead soldiers doesn't make a notable "battle" any more than 42 dead civilians makes a notable "massacre". (Taivo (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep If this were 42 civilians became collateral damage in a war zone, then this would not be notable, but it is 42 civilians deliberately rounded up and killed. Edward321 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, once again, I call for perspective. Are we going to have a separate article for each time that the Germans "deliberately rounded up and killed" Jews in every town? One article for Rivne, one article for Zdolbuniv, one article for Uzhhorod, one article for Chop, etc.? There is nothing at all unique about the massacre at Baligród. It was part of a series of attacks and counterattacks by Poles and Ukrainians. This article contains not much more than two sentences. It will never contain more. That's not notable. (Taivo (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iku Nakahara[edit]

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

Not enough evidence of notability. The sole claimed role is not verifiable even after incursion into the game website. One sole support role in a notable series doesn't constitute a voice actor career and thus can't pass WP:ENTERTAINER. In addition there is no Japanese Wikipedia article. Adding all those facts make me vote Delete. KrebMarkt 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, not much doubt she voiced three popular viodeo games [43][44], but there is nothing to show this as itself notable. No articles. No awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those refs users editable database? If so that resolve nothing in term of verifiability unfortunately. --KrebMarkt 05:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cast list is one of the more reliable (ahem) bits on IMDB which can be sourced to the production itself. However, and though I believe she was in those projects, I agree, there is no notability that is Wikipedia sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea, that the point mostly trustworthy source yet not enough to qualify as reliable by Wikipedia standard. Unfortunately any bad faith editor can hammer that kind of weak spot using the verifiability policy to practice scorched earth tactics. --KrebMarkt 08:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources or notability here. --DAJF (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Fuss Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable concert tour. fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The album is quite notable, but of course that doesn't necessarily translate to a notable tour. I'll look around to see if I can find sources that demonstrate notability per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Concert_tours. PDCook (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some articles such as this and this. These articles are about the tour, not just merely mentioning it, but I'm still not sure it crosses the Wikipedia:MUSIC#Concert_tours threshold. I'll keep looking. PDCook (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't been able to find any references that suggest this tour meets the criteria spelled out in Wikipedia:MUSIC#Concert_tours. The set list and the tour duration could be merged into The Killers or Hot Fuss article. The list of individual tour dates isn't particularly useful. PDCook (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Co-discoverer of an asteroid. Co. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you: BLP½E. JBsupreme (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Co-delete per nom. :) Chutznik (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is named in the 82092 Kalocsa article, that's enough wikifame by half ¨¨ victor falk 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 82092 Kalocsa per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MiRroar (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 82092 Kalocsa. No point in deleting this. Warrah (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David Eppstein, but kudos for the hilarious nomination statement. :) Ray^Talk 08:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search in Hungarian Wikipedia for Derekas aliz turns up 12 results: http://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speci%C3%A1lis%3AKeres%C3%A9s&redirs=1&search=Derekas+aliz&fulltext=Search&searchengineselect=mediawiki&ns0=1 I can't read (thus evaluate) these, but they might bear on notability. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money (Season Three)[edit]

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

Article about a canceled reality television show with sourcing mostly based on blogs. Most salient information is already included in the main article, I Love Money. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears this could be speedy deleted per WP:CSD given the prior AFD that I just found. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page should be deleted. All pertinent information is in the I Love Money Parent article. Neutralis (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Of Page

In my opinion this page has been very helpful to other fans of the dhow as well as myself. Even though the information came from blogs the blogs heard it from the cast of the show itself. So please don't delete this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffysboy292818 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be editing parts of the page to meet the wikipedia guidelines

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 09:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Block[edit]

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

DELETE. Seriously, what gives with Category:Asteroid discoverers? It is chock full of non-notables who saw an asteroid or two. Just like this guy. JBsupreme (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If discovering one asteriod is what makes him notable then it is not sufficient. I haven't found any significant coverage of him as an individual in any independent reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MiRroar (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Can't find reliable sources, Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are and have never been any references that qualify him to be notable per Wiki guidelines.SoxFan999 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 - Vandalism; page was created a while back when this was a village in Haryana instead of Assam, same IP involved both times –SpacemanSpiff 08:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Rajwansh[edit]

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

Unreferenced, appears to be a WP:HOAX, all mentions online are the name of a non-notable person. MuffledThud (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio of http://versita.com/science/engineering/paladyn/authors/aims_and_scope/). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics[edit]

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

New journal in the process of being established. Has not published a single article yet and, according to its web site, does not even have its editorial team in place as they are still looking for associate editors. Article creation premature, does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Note: article restored after challenge to deletion due to expired prod, see User talk:Jclemens#Paladyn. Journal of Behavioral Robotics. Crusio (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. This way if Paladyn takes off, it's easier to recreate. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio and do not userify. I have listed it foor speedy deletion as a copyvio of the journal home page. That would definitvely prevent keeping it even in user space. Even if the article were rewritten, the journal is not even in Ulrich's which is a usual minimum standard. Nor would Ulrich's include it, for it has not yet published a single issue. In the circumstances it fails CRYSTAL, and in the circumstances, , the article is very close to speedy deletion as entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After a good deal of discussion, it appears that there is not consensus for deletion at this time. This could certainly be revisited at a later date, however. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories[edit]

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

While there are certainly a fair number of references, we have to ask if this is really within the range of what Wikipedia aims to provide. Is this list of conspiracy theories - including allegations that the earthquake was purposefully caused - actually encyclopedic, or is it better suited to a different site altogether? Ckatz^chat _spy 07:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2010 Haiti earthquake It outlines conspiracy theories without asserting them to be true, thus it is relevant and factual. But not distinct enough to be separate from the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.136.156 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does it meet WP:FRINGE ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP: FRINGE should not be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia cannot have articles about fringe topics (such as Haiti conspiracy theories), it simply provides guidelines for how to write such articles. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination seems to be based on an assertion that Wikipedia doesn't cover conspiracy theories. Since we don't have that policy the article must be judged on regular notability guidelines, which it appears to satisfy. __meco (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True. But Wikipedia also has a tradition of matching the title of an article with its actual content and the bulk of the article has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. I also don't buy the notability argument: a theory isn't notable simply because a source shows that someone formulated it. Pichpich (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you think we should rename this article, rather than deleting it? If so, which title do you suggest? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[45] ¨¨ victor falk 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems there is nothing notable here that can't be adequately covered in other articles. The HAARP claim doesn't have reliable sources, the "concerns over military occuption" claim is not really a conspiracy theory and the rest doesn't meet WP:FRINGE and so certainly shouldn't be given undue weight by having it's own article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see very little encyclopedic value beyond WP:FRINGE at best, and even then I am skeptical...Modernist (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, where exactly in our notability guidelines do you personally see that this article fails, since you obviously don't want to cast your vote per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. __meco (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UCS, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR for starters...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:UCS (Use common sense) has as much wight in an AfD discussion as the aforementioned WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

WP:NPOV. That is a guideline for balancing articles to avoid bias towards one position or another. It is blatantly inapplicable as an argument for article deletion. Moreover, noone, not even yourself has presented any argument to the effect that this article is written from a non-neutral point of view.

Wikipedia:Verifiability? What about it? And even if the article were plagued by unverifiable assertions (which it obviously isn't), like the preceding policy this applies to how an article should be written and is not a guideline to be applied during AfD the way you appear to do.

WP:NOR. No original research. Also completely spurious to bring up with reference to the current article. It is adequately referenced and not based on original research.

All in all your entire argument dissipates and your IDONTLIKEIT remains when all your smokescreens have been blown away. __meco (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you remain at one with WP:ILIKEIT, and I completely disagree with your analysis. If you do not think the theories put forth in this article are not original research and non-neutral - (Pat Robertson), or unverifiable - Robertson again, HAARP, etc, There is no conversation here...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously completely misguided as to what is meant by "original research" in Wikipedia's guideline. It refers to original research by Wikipedia's editors. If anyone does research or present their opinions and this is covered by third-party sources that is not what is meant by that term in our guidelines. __meco (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~And I feel sorry for you pal,~~ If you cannot see the hate-mongering, anti-semitic, rumor driven drivel concerning the Israelis for the original research spin that it is...Modernist (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful Modernist, you are heading pretty close to personal attack territory with that one. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia already has a lot of articles about hate-mongering, anti-semitic, rumor driven drivel-spouting bigots. See [46]. Are you seriously suggesting you think we should delete all of the articles in that category? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move to Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. No fewer than four national governments, those of Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela, have advanced various conspiracy theories concerning the earthquake in Haiti. Definitely notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: My vote was initially Keep, but I changed it to Move/Rename. I believe Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti Earthquake is a better title not only because it dovetails with WP: WikiProject Alternative Views, but also because it is more broadly-encompassing than "conspiracy theories" and can include non-mainstream opinions that would not fall under the conspiracy theory label: specifically, actor Danny Glover's fringy claim that the earthquake was caused by manmade global warming and the failure of the Copenhagen summit. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment National governments have only expressed concern about military occupation of Haiti, which as I have noted on the talk page does not really belong in this article. Claims about HAARP and organ harvesting were only made on state-controlled media (not the same as an official government position), and one of those was swiftly withdrawn.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point. This is one of the reasons why I ultimately decided to change my vote to Move, since the new title would be more inclusive. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm quite certain we can mention that a bunch of tin pot dictatorships are pushing an anti-american agenda without giving them undue weight. I'm sure there is an article discussing international response to the quake that can hold this trivia quite easily. Reso lute 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful to avoid pushing an Americo-centric point of view, per Wikipedia regulations. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as evidenced by the references in the article, this topic has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Therefore, it is notable enough for an article per the GNG. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the references in the article simply show that a lot of nonsense has been spewed on the quake. As I point out below, only the HAARP accusation can truly be considered as a conspiracy theory. Pichpich (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references that I have looked at appear to be no more than gossip. For instance, I wasted my time learning that it has been proven that Isreal harvested organs in Palestine, so look out!, they might try to harvest them in Haiti as well! - that sort of trash. Not all all appropriate for Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly which references are you referring to with that statement? I could try to find better ones if you'd be specific about your objections. Besides, I don't think it's actually been proven that Israel harvested organs in Palestine, like you claim. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting it has been proven...I said I felt that the refs that I've looked at were not reliable. I looked at the Youtube video. I also am far from satisfied with the supposed link between Chavez and what he supposedly said re the US causing the quake. Using his warnings about US occupation in Haiti to connect him takes quite a stretch of the imagination. You don't need to look any farther than the US to find similar warnings. Many well-respected US journalists are saying the same thing. Gandydancer (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the nominator; you asked "...or is it better suited to a different site altogether?" With that statement, are you suggesting that this article be transwikied? If so, which wiki do you propose moving it to? Stonemason89 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - I am disgusted by these theories, but I'm sure they will find their way on to Wikipedia somehow and I'd rather seem them confined on this page rather than inserted into the main articles. But I'd only want to see theories advocated by notable people, such as a head of state, be include. Than again, I think some of these heads of state actually get their news from nutball blogs.David Straub (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - no reason to delete - TouLouse (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The problem is that the article gathers a lot of unrelated material. Robertson's "pact with the devil" is not a conspiracy theory since, presumably, the devil doesn't really need co-conspirators. Chavez' criticism is not a conspiracy theory. It's a criticism of the US' ulterior motive and regardless of the merit of this criticism, it has little to do with a conspiracy. The ludicrous HAARP thing can be covered in the HAARP article, especially since there's little if any material on the subject. As for the organ harvesting, it's not Haiti-specific: it's an accusation that comes up whenever the IDF is in the news. Pichpich (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...presumably, the devil doesn't really need co-conspirators." Actually, Robertson was saying that the Devil was co-conspiring with the Haitians to end French rule. So it is a conspiracy theory. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that I actually have to sit here and argue that a pact with the devil is not a conspiracy theory... By the way, you should note that in Robertson's mind, the entity responsible for the quake is God, not Satan and his Haitian co-conspirators. Pichpich (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Chavez did expressly state that the US used a "tectonic weapon" against Haiti. His statements went far beyond simply "criticism" of the US' motive in Haiti. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Chavez actually did "expressly state" that the US used a tectonic weapon against Haiti, you must have a better reference than just that one TV clip. Where are they? That is the only thing in your article that might be considered a conspiracy, and you have only one poor reference for it. (Keep in mind that FOX news, for instance, makes up a good part of what they call the news.) Gandydancer (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are an encyclopedia, not a holding pen for whackjob conspiracy theories. JBsupreme (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to cite an actual guideline which is relevant to an AfD or should we file your "vote" also under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? __meco (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may mentally file it wherever you please. JBsupreme (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a ragbag of various bizarre stories circulating around this event, as they do these days around any disaster. The individual parts are, in my opinion, either non-notable or barely so. Mikenorton (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an encyclopedia, we should report the facts, not judge their merit. The fact is that there are conspiracy theories about the earthquake. As long as the article can remain NPOV, it's legitimate. (note: this comment was unsigned, but added by Me Three (talk))

As was noted above, most of the content is not actually about conspiracy theories, and what is left does not warrant an article. Perhaps you think we should rename this to Stuff about the 2010 Haiti earthquake that wasn't included in the main article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The value of the theories and the value of this article are two things. To record that there have been such theories, as an entry of an encyclopaedia, is the value of this article. If an encyclopaedia can record theories and allegations held by some medieval Europeans about the Black Death, why can it not have an entry recording theories and allegations held by some people nowadays about the 2010 Haiti earthquake? When people look back ten or twenty years later, I think they will find that this article deserves its existence, if it will be kept. Qrfqr (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a wp:indiscriminate collection of information for its own sake, especially from dubious conspiracy theory provenance. The superstitions about the Black Death are encyclopedic because or their historical and religious importance, not because they could be labeled "conspiration theories"¨¨ victor falk 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Qrfqr: are you referring to the articles Black Death in medieval culture and Consequences of the Black Death? The shifts described there are not about "theories and allegations by some medieval Europeans"! They are about the well-documented transformation of a whole society's organization and perception of religion. They are emphatically not concerned with an exhaustive record of all instances of superstitions about the Black Death but about their overall aspect and effects. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Pichpich: First, please read the "Persecutions" section of "Consequences of the Black Death". That the Jews poisoned the wells caused the Black Death is of course a conspiracy theory! But as you put it, it reflected some aspect of the medieval society. This is exactly what I want to say: The value of a conspiracy theory or an allegation and the value of THE EXISTENCE OF such conspiracy or allegation are two things. A conspiracy theory might be of no value and rejected as nonsense by most of the people. However, the value of its very existence is another story. I am not going to list all the theories and what we can know from it, but just one and some of its implications: the conspiracy of that some kind of non-conventional weapon of some country caused this earthquake. The value of its existence is, that people are aware of the dominant role of that country in that region, and some people are afraid of the resurgence of the imperialism (if it had ever disappeared); that people have angst toward the developing science and technology, which are out of the comprehensible range of the lay people, but they also facilitate, at least some aspects, of the daily life. People love it and hate it, need it but distrust it. It reflected how little the scientists know about earthquakes, and how less the lay people do. I am not going on analysing it, but I believe many things could be found out.

As for your second point, I am afraid that I can not agree with you. How do you know that there is no bit in the articles regarding the Black Death which is concerned with superstition, while all of them are about the overall aspect and effects? As I said, an entry can be about a conspiracy and what it reflects at the same time.

Besides, I think the whole debate also has something to do with what an encyclopaedia should be in our minds. Until now, a conventional encyclopaedia is not a place to publicate original research work. But how secondary should the information of an encyclopaedia be? Can people collect facts (such as "there has been such conspiracy theory that...") and do their own analysis with their own viewpoints and values, or should the readers accept the viewpoint and value of the encyclopaedists (eg. certain materials have been rejected by the encyclopaedists as worthless so that readers later have no chance to do their own judgement)? Something which seems worthless at this moment (because its context is well understood by contemporary people) might be valuable later on. Is wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopaedia which lives only HERE and NOW, or is it supposed to be an encyclopaedia beyond HERE and NOW? Well, everyone can have different opinion on it, but this might also be the underlying point that this debate is about. Qrfqr (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the existence of an allegation versus the truth or merit of that allegation. It's about the importance that these allegations have on the general perception of events and the consequences of that perception. The accusations against Jews after the plague were extremely pervasive and the resulting antisemitism led to many massacres. Pat Robertson said all kinds of dumb things about 9/11 but you won't find it mentionned in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it was never taken seriously enough to shape the public discourse on 9/11. You will however find it mentionned in the article on Robertson because it helped cement his reputation as an increasingly senile lunatic. Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) is not a repository for anything and everything that's been said about a topic. To quote from the FRINGE guideline: "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere." So yes, we do discriminate and leave aside the background noise. We don't let readers simply make up their own judgement because we don't simply list fringe views: we also explain and document their rejection by mainstream science. And we do organize content so that controversies, conspiracies or allegations are presented in contexts where they have had an impact. Discussing HAARP in the context of the Haiti earthquake is not the same as discussing the Haiti earthquake in the context of HAARP. Note also that nobody here has seriously argued that concerns about imperialism have to disappear. They absolutely should be discussed but not in an article where they are conflated with paranoid theories that are widely portrayed as complete nonsense. Not that I'm a big Ron Paul fan but it's misleading to summarize this nuanced statement by "believes that the resolution would lead to an "open-ended US military occupation of Haiti"" and to include it in a section titled "Other countries are taking advantage of the earthquake". Pichpich (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very convincing to categorize the Jews-poisoned-the-wells as "very pervasive" and what Pat Robertson said as "dumb things" and "never taken seriously enough" without first defining what is "being significant", what is "being pervasive", and then giving evidence to categorize them. Sometimes the supporters of Pat Robertson just remain silent, but it does not mean that his words are not influential just because one can not hear his supporters' voice.

As for what an encyclopaedia should be, it is a convention that an encyclopaedia is not a collection of daily newspapers. That does not mean the encyclopaedia should not have what has been written in newspapers. As for the criteria for an event to be written in encyclopaedia, yes, the importance is a good one, but what is "being important" is not well defined and, as I have said in my previous reply, what seems trivial now may be important in the future.

About how secondary the information of Wikipedia should be, there are different opinions. I think it is a thing which remains to be discussed, so we might need more opinions of other users. Thank you for having let me know your viewpoint, and I respect it. Qrfqr (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An allegation can be both dumb and pervasive. Dumbness of course is very subjective. Pervasiveness is not and can be established to a certain extent. If future evidence eventually shows that the Devil-pact theory did end up shaping a lot of people's view on the quake, it will still be time to write about it. Right now, all we have is Robertson saying something that had people laughing or rolling their eyes for 24h. That's news, not encyclopedic content. (And not to belabour the point but it's news that doesn't even qualify as a conspiracy theory.) Pichpich (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is possible that the contents of this article may earn its place in an encyclopaedia, it's just that not everyone think it does RIGHT NOW. This is what I have asked previously, i.e., should wikipedia be an encyclopaedia of HERE and NOW, or should it be an encyclopaedia beyond HERE and NOW? I have my own opinion, but I think it's discussable. Another question is that, will an event "become important", or has it always been important, and it's just that people find its importance at some moment? It is a convention that an encyclopaedia is not a place to publicate original research, but is it a convention that an encyclopaedia should not contain information providing insights beyond its time, even if no original research is involved? This is to be discussed. If the public opinion is that wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia of HERE and NOW, I will respect it. Qrfqr (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The folks in the discussion so far have argued persuasively (on all sides). I am voting "weak keep" because information about conspiracy theories is possibly ~~useful~~ notable no matter how bizarre they are, and the available sources get us beyond some of the issues with WP:FRINGE for the Wikipedians involved with the article. However, we must make sure that the article gives the impression of merely reporting someone else's conspiracy theories and why they could be considered notable. Avoid language that gives any impression of actually promoting such quackery. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It.27s_useful ¨¨ victor falk 00:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant "notable" rather than "useful." My vote remains the same but I would not be too upset if this weird article is deleted. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If edited correctly, there is nothing left of this article. As many editors above have pointed out, neither satanic intervention nor the US taking geopolitical advantage of the situation meet the definition of a conspiracy theory (why is there no link to this in the article)?
That leaves two possible ones, HAARP and israeli organs, both of which could be much better covered in High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#Conspiracy_theories and Organ_donation_in_Israel#Organ_trafficking. Which in my opinion is doubtful they should, since the first one is based upon a lone report from a Venezuelan tv station and the second from propaganda sources like presstv.ir; this is not enough.¨¨ victor falk 00:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a conspiracy theory is somewhat fluid; as I pointed out before, a strong argument be made that Robertson's remarks are a conspiracy theory because he was accusing the Haitian people of having (historically) conspired with the Devil in order to overthrow the French. Likewise, the "geopolitical advantage" claims made by Castro et al., can be considered a conspiracy theory because the USA is currently insisting that it is not occupying Haiti. This means that someone who claims that the USA is occupying Haiti is accusing the government of secretly (conspiratorially) doing so, since the USA is obviously not doing so openly. Accusing the government of secretly doing something nefarious, without evidence to back it up, certainly qualifies as a conspiracy theory. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluidity can only go so far. You won't find any mention of the "God's wrath" theory in 9/11 conspiracy theories and calling Robertson's theory a conspiracy theory is stretching the definition by a couple of miles. The criticism of American imperialism is not a conspiracy theory: it's not about a covert plan to overtake Haiti but about the concern that the US presence is a de facto military occupation. Whatever the merits of these concerns, they can and probably should lead to an article that doesn't conflate it with the HAARP nonsense or, worse yet, Robertson's deep insight. Pichpich (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there now is a link to conspiracy theory in the lede of the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:FRINGE due to the sheer number of sources over an exended time (and thus not subject to WP:ONEEVENT) that prove notability. This is not one conspiracy theory, but several, much like the birther movement. There is nothing wrong with this article that can't be fixed with normal editing. Like many articles about concepts, one event or statement is notable, but in toto becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have two more arguments: (1) the article is still being improved, and may be kept in a few days as it shows itself (per WP:HEY), and (2) as I added to the lede, "Like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, these are not a single set of coherent ideas, but an inchoate set of urban legends and statements, often by notable individuals and documented by various sources." Bearian (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the reference to the birther conspiracies iis really helpful. To the non-American public, this is meaningless and the birther conspiracies actually involve conspirators for the cover-up. Note also the ridiculous sentence "Some theories, more accurately allegations for which no evidence has been advanced, claim that the earthquake was the result of divine judgment upon Haiti." Gee, who would have guessed that no evidence of divine judgment is scarce... Pichpich (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence of divine judgment is scarce..."? I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to say...Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-described as "an inchoate set of urban legends and statements" -- in English, that means "a lot of nonsense." It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Warrah (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, just because it is "nonsense" does not preclude it from appearing in Wikipedia. The people making these claims are very notable hand as a result, the claims are too, regardless of whether or not they are "nonsense". I might add that just deleting the Wikipedia article on a conspiracy theory does not and will not make the theory go away. The bottom line is that these theories exist and that a lot of high-profile people (including Chavez) believe them. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—"a lot of nonsense" (per User:Warrah) seems like a fair assessment to me. The article is a collection of loosely-associated topics that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There are conspiracy theories about everything which are covered in the media, and we don't need an article for conspiracy theories related to each event. Some theories deserve articles, but only when they entered serious public debate and have been covered in numerous mainstream sources, which is not the case here. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Chavez may not be "mainstream" from your or my perspective, but he is a head of state, which means he is definitely notable. Since Morales, Castro, and the Iranian state media have been echoing him, that only strengthens the case for notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's highly misleading. As I noted, it is true that Chavez, Morales, Castro and a number of observers are questioning the massive role being played by the US armed forces. There's plenty of material to write a sound article on the subject but it's not a conspiracy theory. Your argument is that Chavez hinted at the HAARP conspiracy. Fair enough but Morales, Castro and the Iranian state media are not echoing that specific bit of lunacy. Pichpich (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH. Well-sourced paragraphs about unrelated conspiracy theories don't make an encyclopedia article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agreeing with reasons provided by Qrfqr and Meco. --LLTimes (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially because of the US occupation allegations. ----Remove---- organ theft dangerous fringe rubbish. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then you're left with an article that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That why I've suggested possibly renaming this article Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, which is a broader, more inclusive term than conspiracy theories. See below. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to change my vote to reflect that. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or 2010 Haiti earthquake controversies--TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
- First of all this article gives WP:UNDUE weight to rumours, theories that always exist in small scale to all events.
- The reason the section "The earthquake was not a natural disaster" should not exist is covered WP:FRINGE.
- The section "Other countries are taking advantage of the earthquake" is not a conspiracy theory is a point of view in the politics arena. Every country, every political party is judging events and moves from other countries or parties. This section would be better formed as "Controversy on...". Still a phrase o Fidel Castro doesn't completely explain Cuba's point of view on the US presence in Haiti and this is more important than a phrase in an article. Again check WP:WEIGHT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hodgepodge of only vaguely related topics. Trying to unite foreign accusations of US intent to occupy Haiti, Mr. Robinson's horrific statements with regards to Satan, strange allegations of organ harvesting and paranoid delusions about earthquake making machines into a single topic under the banner of "Consipracy Theories" is bordering on WP:SYNTH. In teality all this "article" is, is a dumping grounds for minutiae that won't stick in the 2010 Haiti earthquake. If their inclusion in the main article is unacceptable, their retention in this shady little WP:COATRACK is unacceptable as well. Shereth 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shereth - nicely and succinctly put. ukexpat (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is alot of talk about this Conspiracy, it has received national news coverage, and there are links to readings on HAARPs induction magnetomter on those days alone.--Indlebe (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Er, which one? The article mentions 3, or 4 if you include Robertson's codswallop... – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seem to be two arguments for deleting this article, essentially (1) it is about nonsense and (2) some of the things discussed aren't conspiracies (a pact with the devil isn't a conspiracy - yes it is - well, while there is a conspiracy, the earthquake is putatively from God alone hence not a conspiracy so there - how many angels can dance on the point of a pin?). (2) is just to do with the article name and maybe should be a call for an all-encompassing name. I would say "crackpot notions about ...", others will surely want something a bit less forthright. Splitting the article should be avoided. So argument (2) for deletion should be rejected; it could be changed to a discussion about renaming. Argument (1) has substance and merits a vote. I take the view that these arguments, nutty though they may be, are part of things as they are. If I were reading about this from a faraway country unaware of the tensions in this part of the world I would want to know about things discussed here. Future historians might find this a valuable resource. Remember that rubbish tips tell us far more about the day-to-day life of long-gone civilisations than monuments and official documents. "How did the Global Civilisation of 1900-2048 react to natural catastrophes? Discuss." Pol098 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake"? That would dovetail nicely with WP: WikiProject Alternative Views, which deals with such topics. "Non-mainstream views" would be another (similarly NPOV) phrase that could be used. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to change my vote to Move. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It isn't taking anything away from Wikipedia, nor does it appear to violate any guidelines. If it isn't written in the correct style, then it can be reworded, and if the content isn't appropriate at the moment it would be better for someone familiar with the topic to add to it, rather than delete it. ResPublicae (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~My vote is still keep for the time being~~. However, I would also like to suggest a possible compromise; namely, merging this article into List of conspiracy theories. If enough people are willing to consider this idea, I might consider changing my own vote as well. How does that idea sound? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that if we name this article Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, we will not only resolve the controversy over whether the Robertson (and Chavez) comments are "really" a conspiracy theory or not, but we will ALSO be able to include Danny Glover's claims that manmade global warming caused the quake. Those claims are definitely wacky (global warming causes a lot of things, ~~but certainly not earthquakes~~but usually not earthquakes!), but not a "conspiracy theory". So I've decided to change my vote to Move. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The advantage of the Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake title is that it stresses the true nature of the article: a "hodgepodge of only vaguely related topics" as Shereth nicely put it. The article is built from bits and pieces which have been rejected as irrelevant from the core article on the quake and filing them all under "conspiracy theory" is artificial. In particular, criticism of the American military presence doesn't deserve to be conflated with Pat Robertson's Faustian obsessions. Although the most strident protest came from leaders who just love opportunities to rant against the US, it's still a genuine geopolitical issue. It could be (and deserves to be) addressed in the article on Operation Unified Response. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment which probably isn't related to the Haiti earthquake claims: I haven't read Glover's opinions about global warning and this earthquake, so can't comment specifically (on the face of it they sound unlikely). However to say, as said above that "global warming ... certainly [doesn't cause] earthquakes!" isn't necessarily true in all cases. Specifically, there have been thoroughly respectable opinions that in the longer term the melting of huge volumes of ice (we're speaking of kilometers of thickness) will significantly change local tensions within the earth's crust and is likely to cause earthquakes. Pol098 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right....my bad. I learn something new every day! Stonemason89 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As pointed out by the arguments above, this article includes a pile of unrelated information. Burningview ✉ 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Question: Does the AFD statistics parser only count Delete and Keep votes, or can it tabulate other types of votes too (move, merge, transwiki, etc.)? Because after I changed my vote from Keep to Move, I expected the statistics page to reflect that; instead, it dropped my vote from the vote count altogether! Stonemason89 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its just a rough headcount, I'm not sure why we even have that built into the template, to be honest. JBsupreme (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Additional evidence for the subject's notability has just surfaced yesterday; the San Francisco Bay View, a nationally known hard-left newspaper, has thrown its hat in the ring with two of its columnists advancing theories about HAARP, oil, white supremacy, etc. See [47]. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: More and more people just keep jumping on the conspiracy theory bandwagon; abiogenic oil proponent F. William Engdahl just claimed that the real reason the US is in Haiti is because of oil; this is a similar claim to the one made by Alex Jones. I don't think anybody would deny that that claim is, indeed, a bona fide conspiracy theory. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The four major topics, that the US or God's punishment caused the earthquake, concerns about US military presence in Haiti, and organ harvesting are really diverse topics, a LOT moreso than the various theories about Obama's birth. They do not comprise an article. Only concerns about the US military by four national leaders is perhaps worth inclusion in one of the main earthquake articles. The others are so far one-off comments or not extensively referenced by major third-party organizations to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Galatee (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two words in your last sentence caught my eye: "so far". Do you think that other people or organizations will continue to promote these theories in the future? That seems likely to me, given that the earthquake was such a recent event. Already, the San Francisco Bay View has injected itself into the conspiracy-fest with an article that was published after this AFD started. My point is, why delete the article now and then be forced to recreate it again later (since you can bet that the number of people making such claims will only get larger)? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if your primary objection to this article is the fact that it contains "diverse topics", perhaps you should support merging this article into List of conspiracy theories instead, given that List of conspiracy theories is itself a collection of diverse topics? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons above, this article is nonsense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this article is nonsense"? That's not a very substantive argument... Stonemason89 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reasons above, and the fact that there's conspiracy theories over every new earthquake. This is no different. If it must be added, put it in List of conspiracy theories.Planetary (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"there's conspiracy theories over every new earthquake..."? That's a statement I doubt; I don't remember any other earthquake generating the same kind of attention from conspiracy theorists that this one has received. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename: "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, and some of the things discussed in the article aren't really conspiracy theories—declaring an event to be some sort of divine judgment is quite different from attempting to explain it as the result of a human conspiracy. "Conspiracy" necessarily involves multiple actors, and as I understand it God is believed to work alone. Something like "alternative explanations" or "non-natural explanations" might be more workable. Everyking (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think those suggestions are valuable and should be considered once the article passes the AfD. __meco (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at some of my ideas above; my personal suggestion was "Alternative views of the 2010 Haiti earthquake", since it dovetails nicely with WP: WikiProject Alternative Views and is more inclusive, allowing us to add other material such as Danny Glover's recent claims about global warming causing the earthquake. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is not nonsense, it just documents a bunch of well-referenced nonsense. Make sure "conspiracy theories" is retained in the title so that most visitors can easily realize this. GreyWyvern^⚒ 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very well written and researched article... most of the delete votes seem to be from people who are personally offended by any mention of other people's anti-Israeli or anti-American views (no matter how ridiculous they are) and wish to suppress them from being broadcast. Or they just don't like conspiracy theories. WP:IDONTLIKEIT Rapido (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should take the time to re-read the "delete" votes before making such sweeping generalizations... Pichpich (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say all the delete votes were based on IDONTLIKEIT, he just said many/most of them were. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is actually nothing whatsoever to indicate that any of the delete votes are from people who are "personally offended by" and "wish to supress" other people's anti-Israeli or anti-American views. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Read Modernist and Resolute's comments again...to me it's pretty obvious that they were offended by the views of the conspiracy theorists mentioned in the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear he didn't say "many/most", he said "most" and this flies in the face of evidence. I'm also puzzled by Rapido's claim that the article is "well-written"... Pontificalibus and others have ridded the article of its most grotesque incoherences but it's still obvious that the article is a collage. Pichpich (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, umm, no Stonemason. S/he said "most", not many/most. Which quite well represents what is going on in this article: Taking a few facts, and very few at that, and manipulating and massaging them into something that you want them to say rather than what they actually do say. I am reading the same posts that you are reading, and I see no flag-waving-blind-patriotism here. Certainly not in my case! If I had my way we would create a new national monument with Howard Zinn, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut, and...it would be nice to have some African American up there and I'm sure they're out there, but fat chance of finding one, all things considered... And we'd finish the Chief Crazy Horse monument up ASAP, as well. OK, sorry about the soap box, but it past 5 o'clock here and I am slightly PWD, and I'm sure I'll regret it! Gandydancer (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally, I wasn't referring to your comments at all. I'm not saying I agree with Rapido completely or mostly; I'm just trying to offer up a possible explanation for why he/she said what he/she said. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were not referring to me personally. But that said, your "possible explanation" is, I repeat, a fine example of this article you want to include in wikipedia: Pulling a wide variety of information together and tweaking it this way and that to suit your preconceived thinking. Which is OK for you, I guess, but not for wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is certainly getting a lot of attention; look at the page views history, it's getting nearly 2,000 views a day. Some of that may be due to the AFD, but most of it probably isn't. Of course, popularity in itself is not a reason to vote keep; I'm just pointing out the statistics. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... If you really think the stats are meaningless and irrelevant to the decision at hand, why are you introducing them in the debate? Pichpich (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a page is linked prominently from one of the most viewed pages on the wiki, this should be unsurprising.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, delete, delete (yes, my !vote counts thrice) per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FRINGE, and just a bad idea in general. In honesty, I expect that this article (Conspiracy theories about BLANK) to be written about every major event in the forseeable future, because in this day and age, crackpots always get their day in the limelight (thank you very much, "news" networks). This works for events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina only because it is now well after the fact, and whole books have been written on the subjects. I still would rather see most of them go, but when something is well-discussed among many people and the subject of news articles, books, TV documentaries, and even movies, it deserves mention. When our best sources are tabloids and state-run news, we need to seriously think whether or not this is advancing Wikipedia's aim of furthering mankind's knowledge. Spoiler alert: it is not.
And if you don't like those reasons, I think User:Shereth's hold a great deal of water as well.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shereth. Also, while throwing up some wild-eyed provocative nonsense may cause a little burst of coverage in news media, but unless it is lasting, we have a WP:NOT#NEWS case. All the "theories" in the article are extremely WP:FRINGE-y. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Wikipedia should document such social reactions. This article led me to watch a clip of the White House Press Secretary calling Pat Robertson's comments "utterly stupid", which by itself more than justifies my Obama vote. I do object to the name - I think "conspiracy theory" is a badly overused term that is often misapplied, e.g. Satan killing tens of thousands of Haitians via earthquake for something in 1791 is not a "conspiracy theory" (it's one guy!) but just utterly stupid. I would propose 2010 Haiti earthquake mythology. That said, the bad title is irrelevant to whether the article is notable, and it is clearly notable. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The contents might be notable, but each item would fit better in different exisiting articles. It's having an article of this title we are debating here. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure what "article is notable" means. The point is that what you call "social reactions" are not the topic of the article. The meaningful, substantive and most common of these are addressed in the main article on the quake. What we have here is the background noise and the overflow: stuff that's too marginal to include in the quake article, stuff like the criticism of the US military presence which is in limbo because we're not sure where it should go, stuff like Robertson's comment which is meaningful in the context of the Pat Robertson article but of negligible interest in our coverage of the quake. Wikipedia has no obligation to report on anything that appeared on some nutjob's blog and it should differentiate between the substantive and the anecdotal. The comparison with, say, the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories is deeply flawed. The birther theories had an important impact on American politics, they got tremendous and sustained coverage, a significant number of Americans came to believe in them, academics studied their meaning and their roots, etc. In contrast, what do we have here? Robertson's comment which was the subject of news for 24 hours and was laughed out of existence, an organ harvesting accusation which has little to do with Haiti and is just the continuation of the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy, the HAARP theory which again is not specific to this earthquake (and not even specific to earthquakes!), a debunked controversy about Chavez giving credence to the HAARP nonsense, a legit debate on American military presence which has nothing to do with conspiracies, mythology or alternate views. I rest my case... Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"an organ harvesting accusation which has little to do with Haiti and is just the continuation of the 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy..." How, exactly, does it have "little to do with Haiti"; the organ harvesting was alleged to have taken place in Haiti. Also, the Aftonbladet-Israel controversy was about the Palestinian territories, not Haiti. Superficially similar, yes, but not enough to make the former a "continuation" of the latter. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These rumours have circulated for years (see Organ donation in Israel and Abu Kabir Forensic Institute) and they're part of a threaded history that is currently centred around Haiti because that's the last we've heard of the IDF. The claim is rooted in the 90s (and actually acknowledged as more or less correct) but now it just follows the IDF wherever it goes: you'll have no trouble finding Iranian propaganda that extends the accusation to the 2006 Lebanon War, the Gaza War, the 2004 Israel–Gaza conflict. Actually, just for the sake of epic lulz, I'd like to see you try to make a case at Talk:Israel Defense Forces that this needs to be added to the IDF article or, if that doesn't work, that we need an article on Israel Defense Forces conspiracy theories. Pichpich (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note. If you're not convinced that the claim about the IDF in Haiti is a direct continuation of the earlier accusations, go and listen to (or read the transcript of) that "Theautries West of Seattle" clown. He doesn't actually say explicitly "the IDF is stealing organs in Haiti". He says "the IDF has participated, in the past, in stealing organ transplants of Palestinians and others. So. There is little monitoring in such a tragedy as this so the Haitian people must watch out for their citizens." Unless I'm missing a follow-up, the accusation about the IDF in Haiti is implicit and it is unmistakably a direct continuation about the earlier controversies. Pichpich (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I think that the main problem here is that the focus of the article is too narrow. There is nothing to merge the four topics into, because there is no article Political reactions to the 2010 Haiti earthquake. (It could be started as a section in the main earthquake article, but I suspect a hostile reception, and the amount of information would soon outgrow the space provided there)

For example, the Venezuelan media did not just allege a HAARP conspiracy - they alleged that the U.S. was planning to send Haitian migrants to Guantanamo Bay[48] (now confirmed by Fox News[49]) and that the U.S. was using the earthquake to launch a military occupation (now formally alleged by the head of UNASUR [50]). If this article is deleted, I think I should start a new article under the right name and with the more relevant political controversies highlighted first, with the intent of working in all the deleted material (with less weight than the important stuff). But it would be better just to move it directly and build it up. Wnt (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the ViVe article (now ref'd in the article) it is apparent they did not even allege a HAARP conspiracy, they just reported on the alledged existence of a Russian report that they said supposedly claimed the earthquake could possibly have been caused by HAARP. Now that is not a political reaction. Neither is Pat Robertson's claim. The "US military occupation of Haiti" might be split of to somewhere else, but a simple rename is not appropriate unless we first remove items that aren't a politcal reaction or don't have significant coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems the contents of this page could easily be split up. The Pat Robertson controversy belongs on his page, the HAARP bit is already mentioend on HAARP's page, and the stuff the foreign leaders are saying should be on their pages in their controversy sections. Planetary (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you can vote merge if you wish. Not all AFD votes have to follow the keep/delete dichotomy; there are grey areas in between, one of which is merge. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of AfD, "merge" requires something close to a single merge target. The Pat Robertson and HAARP conspiracies are already part of their respective articles. Pichpich (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the cited, notable statements in the article (i.e. from country leaders) are to do with America exploiting the aftermath of the earthquake. Whilst there is absolutely no proof and in my opinion, they are simply ramblings of crazed people, if it needs to be kept it certainly has no place in this article as it is not a conspiracy theory about the actual earthquake itself. It is certainly a misleading name and frankly I am appalled and embarrassed such a wishy-washy unencyclopedic article about a major catastrophe exists on Wikipedia. Feudonym (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. It's ridiculous there is an article on this in Wikipedia; I don't think it helps Wikipedia's credibility by giving absurd claims like this not substantiated by any evidence its own article. Wikipediarul e s 2221 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination gives no valid reason for deletion. Conspiracy theories are perfectly valid encyclopedia subjects. Many of the delete !votes seem to be based on the false assumption that this article reports these theories as being correct, when it reports them as existing. A variety of notable people have held these views and the views are sourced, si it's worth having an article on. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? I understand that 62kb is a lot to read but do your homework before writing "Many of the delete !votes seem to be based on the false assumption that this article reports these theories as being correct, when it reports them as existing." Pichpich (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments are vague enough to be interpreted that way (for example, Wikipediarules2221's or Knowledgekid87's comments). But there's no proof that they actually meant (or didn't mean) that. That's one of the problems with vague comments, as you never know what the person was actually thinking when they wrote it. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the US "military occupation" section should really be in the Operation Unified Response as a criticism section... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nom withdraw and several sources/info added. (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 18:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatchaman (2011 film)[edit]

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

DELETE. This film will undoubtedly be notable if and when it is ever released, but right now it is just WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation by a bunch of blogs, hoping it will meet its projected 2011 release date. JBsupreme (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my delete !vote (see below) -- the title of this article is problematic as the film has had one setback after another with regards to release dates, and the odds are that 2011 might not be the year for this one. In any case, if it is kept separate or merged that is an editorial decision and this material will need to be preserved in some form or another if it is merged and redirected. JBsupreme (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to satisfy CRYSTAL to me. Would be notable if released; is not empty prediction based on scientific, numerical, or future history; is not far in the future (2011 is pretty close); is sourced to at least 2 RSs (with articles, even) as well as all the 'blogs' JBsupreme is clearly using as a pejorative; and would surely be notable if released. And the list of sourcing & coverage is far from exhaustive: I see sources like AICN or Variety when I look in http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=gatchaman+2011+movie --Gwern (contribs) 16:39 28 January 2010 (GMT)

Merge 2-3 sentences into Gatchaman with sources upgrades using Anime News Network related news pages. If you check the chronology and the contents of the news, whatever the release will be postponed again remain in question because the studio may not survive long enough. Blame the lack of success of Astroboy movie. For that reason i clearly don't think a spint-out article now is wise. I will however support re-creation when a dead set and confirmed release date will be available. Year 2010 just won't do. --KrebMarkt 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to Keep enough verifiable contents expansion warranting the existence of the article. I also agree that changing the article name will be good to reflect better its contents focused mostly on the production studio setbacks. --KrebMarkt 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage Gwern links to seems sufficient. The article says it was released in Japan in 2010, and set to be released in America in 2011. But the article says it is scheduled to be completed in 2011. Any movie with more than a hundred million dollars for its budget, is going to be made, and get plenty of press. Dream Focus 05:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you really read all the informations, the movie is not finished yet and the studio laid of 100 animators. --KrebMarkt 07:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usually this sort of film at this stage of production meets WP:NF based on the amount of coverage, but as KrebMarkt notes, the production company closed the office that's supposedly doing the work. One does not get the warm fuzzies here. At this point, until such time as news reports find a rosier future for it, it's appropriate to merge to Gatchaman as a part of that franchise. Deletion is inappropriate, however. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising my opinion to keep based on M. Schmidt's work on filling out the article and demonstrating continuing coverage of the film as a project. Good work there. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Krebmarkt. 'would be notable if released' is future tense, and as Krebmarkt points out, it may never be completed. Sounds like an admission it's not notable now. In fact Crystal refers to only including future events if they are almost certain to take place, which is a questionable claim to make given KrebMarkt's arguements. As it stands now, theres no real notability for an article based on it's current info, just the announcement it is, or maybe made is hardly real coverage that supports a standalone article. Merge the content to Gatchaman, then restore the page if, and when it becomes notable through proper discussion by reliable sources. The claim that any movie with x budget is going to be made is laughable, if the studio can't complete it, they can't complete it - no matter how much they've spent on it. If anything it's likely to drag the studio down with it when they run out of money. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on MQS's sourcing and improvements to the article. I believe that even if the film fails to be released, there is enough coverage to allow a change of approach to the subject. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per satisfying WP:CRYSTAL's "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.": io9, Variety, io9, Mayasia Star, Home Media Magazine, io9, Variety, io9, Forbes, Wireless News, Malaysia Star, Animation Magazine, Coming Soon 1, Coming Soon 2, Animation Magazine, io9, Sin Chew Jit Poh, Comicus, Hollywood Reporter, Clarksville Online, Animation Magazine, Animation World Network... and dozens upon dozens of others over 5 years. They've already sold the rights to manufacture and distribute the film's action figures Active Anime. Heck... there was even a teaser trailer released in 2009 Animation Magazine, Comic Book Movie, Superhero Hype. In my opinion, the widespread coverage of the film's production allow it to merit an article. With respects to Krebmarkt, even were the film to never be made, this topic merits an individual article. No merge or redirect is neccessary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the trailer and some prep artworks delivered here and there. There is a clearly a "scratched vinyl disk" vibe here repeating near the same track again and again like a mantra "will be released in 20XX" :( That why i'm not uber fan of that article because it will we be a shallow one until release of the film or dramatic hence notable boat sinking stagging.

N.B. : KrebMarkt respects a lot MICHAEL Q. too ;) --KrebMarkt 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future films either get coverage that meet the GNG or they do not... and I am always willing to opine deletion of articles on future films that lack coverge. However, in reading through the reliable sources back to 2004, I see this can be expanded to include coverage of the idea, the pre-production, the current production, and even the temporary setback... all from numerous reliable sources. No need leave it a shallow stub. It's just as WP:CRYSTAL states... "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred", and that it is "appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur".

Even as the nominator himself grants the "film will undoubtedly be notable if and when it is ever released"... and with respects to JB, his assertion that it's "just WP:CRYSTAL ball speculation by a bunch of blogs", has been refuted by the coverage of the subject in WP:reliable sources for several years.

Completed film or no, it is the coverage of topic that allows it to meet WP:GNG. I am not a fan of pre-emptively sinking a boat that can be so easily improved... as some here know. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, just how reliable are these sources we're citing? [51] says that this film has a scheduled release date of "early 2009". This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's a problem. JBsupreme (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I'm expanding and improving the article even as I stop back by the AFD. Its the ongoing coverage that meets WP:CRYSTAL, released or not. And yes, it has had a colorful and well-docummented history... A beginning of development in 2004... announcement in 2007 of an anticipated 2008 release... anouncements of finacial setbacks that held of release until 2009.... a company-wide reorganization that is holding off release until 2010 or 2011. The Imagi close-down of US subsidaries was done to assure capital for the Hong Kong parent company for release of the film. They go broke unless they get a return on investment... which seems to be proper incentive. So sure, each time they think they're close, it will receive coverage... but as the history of this project has been documented in RS for years, released or not, it meets GNG and CRYSTAL. And no... I will not be using the blogs or unreliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revised motion -- as of right now I feel that this should be merged, which is a "keep" of sorts -- it is really an editorial decision at this point. I would like to underscore my strong concerns regarding some of the passing mentions and sources currently out there surrounding this topic, many of them do not strike me as "reliable" as defined by our Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, but nonetheless I think we can find a place for it somewhere here and I'm sure its in good hands now. Thanks for changing my mind Michael. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... a merge might be discussed on the article's talk page... but I will continue expanding the article to make it worthy as a stand-alone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One problem I do have with this article is the lack of sourced material to show the people who will voice and direct the movie are accurate.Dwanyewest (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you removed them. That's fine. So what has not been confirmed in sources has now been removed. But not being able to yet share final cast simply means that Wikipedia can have the patience to wait as long as the topic itself meets WP:GNG [52]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly I can see an improvement in the article itself from MQS's efforts, however I'm yet to be convinced it warrants a separate article yet, and if the sourcing will really change anything about that. However, in the interest of fairness and respect for the efforts, I will at least revisit it in a couple of days. At the very least, even if it is merged, there will be some worthwhile content to merge, allowing an easy path to a stand alone article at a later date. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciating your comment, but is it your opinion that the project's coverage over at least 4 years, specially with the setbacks which add to its history, might be discounted as somehow not meeting WP:V, WP:N, and the caveats at WP:CRYSTAL? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I say, I'll look at it when I've got a bit more time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - Mentioned on a ANN article yesterday [53] Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my further expanding and sourcing, I find that the topic is notable in that it has become a well-documented case of an ongoing production hell whose length and scope of coverage has made it worthy of inclusion per guideline. Completed or not, released or not, it is the failure of the Imagi's processes that gives the continued coverage that meets the WP:GNG... and not surprisingly, sometimes continued failure can be more notable than success. What say we perhaps retitle it as a well-sourced stand-alone spin-off of Imagi Animation Studios? Something like Gatchaman (Imagi film project). If (or when) the film is released, it can be returned to a title reflecting its release date for future expansion of the film itself and its cast. Seems this could then be a win-win for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 09:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgeous Geeks[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. not much third party coverage [54]. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization passes WP:ORG. I found this article from PC World and this article from The Star. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 articles is hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me, two articles that provide significant coverage about the subject are enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't what I was hoping for when I clicked on the links. Oh well. Sourcing is sufficient enough I suppose. JBsupreme (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Cunard. Pcap ping 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Userfying and withdrawing article as per primary editor/author. Primary author is withdrawing article and requesting userfying (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Social Experiment[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable online game. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is currently unsourced. Hits from websearches fail WP:SPS (predominantly blogs) or are about the TV series, which does not endorse this online game. No hits from Google News Archive. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this web show doesn't appear to have any claim to notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaba's first blood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sahaba's first blood

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

Single event in Islamic history. Cannot find sources that assert notability to this. Article title doesn't make much of sense either. The little content can be just merged into any Pre-Hijra Islamic history article Raziman T V's Alternate account (Talk - Contribs) 12:52, 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) 15:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not qualified to discern where the importance of this event lies in the Islamic tradition, but it looks on its face to be a significant event indeed. That said, is there a particular reason it needs to be a sub-article of Muhammad in Mecca? I don't see a reference to an individual named "Sahaba" in that article. If this is an important event, perhaps mention can be merged back into the main article? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nommmmmm. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rashid Benish[edit]

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

Afghan emigré writer of unknown notability; entirely unsourced, only claim to notability is a volume of short stories he is said to have produced. Was PROD'ed as unsourced BLP the other day but prod was removed; subsequent activities have been restricted to edit-warring to reinsert unsourced (but assumed "uncontentious") material; but no efforts to source them. Still no sources visible even for the bare bio information, let alone substantial independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability as a writer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this a few days ago and had similar concerns. MBisanz ^talk 06:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same here. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if this was fully sourced, he's still be non-notable. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn and no arguments in favor of deletion. –SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Sproull[edit]

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

No assertion of Notability besides being a Vice President of a branch at Sun. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says that Sproull is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Either of these would be enough to prove notability. In fact, a project to write articles about every member of each academy would be worthwhile. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that every single member would deserve an article solely based on being a member. Notability is after all not contagious. Neither of those statements give any reason as to what they are notable for, besides a dubious notability position. There are many, many members of the Academy of Engineering. Maybe mention in a list. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Shannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Founder of the Bulletin Board System

Articles for deletion/Bob Shannon (computer programmer)

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

Questionable Notability. "First BBS System for <specific antiquated computer>" with hints of a reference in a outdated COMPUTE!'s Gazette magazine doesn't strike me as particularity notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable, and at least one reference (in the form of the COMPUTE! Gazette article referred to) exists. References don't have to be online to be valid. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how to verify this assertion? Or for that matter, how designing not the first BBS system in existence, but rather one that worked on a particular system is notable? It seems to be a stretch. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IFF this content can be adequately sourced. Otherwise, baleet it. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to DELETE after further consideration. It appears that this person has been using Wikipedia as a self-promotional piece to advance his position and retool history as it relates to the bulletin board system. I cannot endorse that. JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some of the info appears true [55], but not enough to pass WP:ANYBIO in my view. I just don't see how this is "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Pcap ping 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A portion of the COMPUTE!'s Gazette article cited is available on the subject's homepage. —Korath (Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That hardly satisfies WP:GNG as it's 3-paragraphs in one article presumably not exclusively about him. There's no mention of him or his BBS in textfiles.com, which is generally accepted as reliable source per [56]. The is also no mention of him or his BBS in this list (the site of BBS: The Documentary), which has over 800 software listed. The fact that he says on his home page "Skeptics abound as per me calling myself the founder of the BBS System." is a good reason to be very suspicious of anything sourced from there. See CBBS, which matches the book source I linked above. Pcap ping 01:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe especially since most of the sources pre-date Google. We shouldn't delete topics (even computer topics) just because publications discussing them are not readily available online. Understanding history of software (and the people associated with it) is an excellent thing for WP to document, and this seems like an obviously notable individual in that early history of PCs. LotLE×talk 01:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sole claim to notability, or source of interest from a computer history standpoint, is his BBS Electric Magazine. A move there is worth considering if better sourcing turns up (I spent the last half hour digging in my basement for that Compute!'s Gazette issue, to no avail), but I'm not seeing anything that would pass WP:BIO. —Korath (Talk) 01:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Most of this article was autobiographical. See the old AfD for another IP whose prefix matches this one, and admits to be Shannon. You may also want to read the comment made by Jason Scott Sadofsky (User:jscott) in the previous AfD. The claim that his is the 1st Commodore VIC-20 BBS is also dubious given that bbsdocumentary.com only lists one such system, and it isn't Shannon's; see [57]. The COMPUTE!'s Gazette snippet only mentions Commodore 64 as platform for "Electric Magazine". Pcap ping 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to verify the claim made by the author of this autobiography. First BBS may be notable, but first for a specific computer would require very good sourcing showing significance. Verbal chat 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the first to write a BBS system for a particular machine isn't especially notable, particularly since other 6502 BBS systems already existed. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He may have done something. That something may be notable. That's fine so far as it goes, but it's not enough to show that he's notable, much less to use as a basis for an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Once notable, always notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E. Pcap ping 23:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those who said delete, please look at the long version [58] of the article. Some valid information was erased by someone who wants the article deleted. I don't think seven hours after someone tags something as needing a citation, that section should be erased by someone else. Give people time to find information, someone perhaps having one of those old magazines. If he got such praise in a notable magazine of the time, he is clearly notable. Dream Focus 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "valid" information is unverifiable. I tagged it as such and JBsupreme deleted it per his standard routine. By the way, the info was added by the subject of the autobiography himself. Pcap ping 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The person adding it should've been asked to scan in the magazine article in question and list exactly what issue it was in. I just got done searching around, and can't find anything more than pictures of the covers of that magazine, the text not backed up anywhere online. I'll do that now, and ask people who have contributed to the Wikipedia article for that magazine, if any of them own any old copies, or know where to find it. Dream Focus 06:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW this person apparently has a reputation for making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to claims-to-fame, and any such autobiographical reference is simply unreliable. I don't say this lightly. JBsupreme (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly new that is notable in that diff besides unverifiable peacock, weasel, and promotional wording. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is famous after all for his edits on Wikipedia—textfiles.com article about that. Pcap ping 08:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing on this isn't anywhere close to establishing notability, and doesn't do a great job of establishing the given facts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have posted a scan of the COMPUTE!'s Gazette article in question here. It mentions Shannon and one other sysop, as examples; this 3-page sidebar article is part of a larger article about the increased use of BBS telecommunications on Commodore systems. It gives a bit of background on Shannon and the other guy (who, AFAIK, doesn't have an article and probably shouldn't). It says nothing about the claim that he was the first person to create a BBS for the VIC-20, so that claim will have to be sourced elsewhere. *** Crotalus *** 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was he in two different articles that year? The article mentions quotes from an article the same writer wrote called "BBS Fever". What you uploaded is an article called "The Indispensable Sysop". Dream Focus 19:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3-page "Indispensable Sysop" sidebar article was part of a larger article called "Bulletin Board Fever", which is presumably the one you're referring to. Only the blue sidebar had any mention of Shannon (and it seems to function as an article in its own right), so that was the only portion I posted. *** Crotalus *** 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that. I've read the entire column, there's no mention of Shannon writing a VIC-20 BBS, only a Commodore 64 one. Instead, Tony Ott is credited with writing a VIC-20 BBS in that column, but there's no claim that that one was the first BBS for that platform either. So, what we have here based on secondary sources is the author of just another Commodore 64 BBS software. There were dozens of these if look at textfiles.com. Doesn't qualify anyone for a biography here via WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. There are also extremely few details about the BBS software itself (14Kb of BASIC, and sold 400 copies); it's very hard to even write an article about that. Pcap ping 09:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice I'd like to inform everyone of this message posted on Wikiproject Software by the writer of the article in question. [59]. Assistance in verifying and explaining to the new editor about reasons that self published information might be in violation of policy is welcome. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holley Smith[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 06:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - At the time this was sent to AFD, he passed WP:AUTHOR (4d) as his WorldCat page says The Resume Writer's Handbook is in >1000 libraries. According to the current version of WP:AUTHOR (4d), though, that's no longer applicable. On the other other hand, I couldn't find any significant coverage of the person himself, so there's nothing to use as the basis for an article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all the relevant guidelines for now. JBsupreme (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 09:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert and Abby[edit]

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

We are not even told where this comic strip appears and we are given no evidence that anyone reads it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Provided that this isn't a hoax, The article could be cleaned up. RadManCF (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know how notable this strip is, but it does exist. See GoComics.com. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not being a hoax is does not make a subject notable. The comic exists, but there is no evidence for notability. I cannot find any evidence of it being covered in reliable sources. I can find no evidence of syndication or anything else that might even hint at notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bangs (rapper)[edit]

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

Rapper with one album recently released. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - references are unimpressive. Chutznik (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep If nothing else, I think his Youtube for "Take U To Da Movies" getting almost 2 million views is notable Take U To Da Movies. At least it should go on List of Internet phenomena-but after all, Samwell's notability is based on What What (In the Butt) and both have articles, so who's to say ya boy Bangs can't? Cuz you still got chance (in his words) Tom Danson (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - An album produced indicates that he passes WP:MUSIC but it's self produced. Falcon8765 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he was an internet phenomenon then I would expect some Google News matches. At the moment, zero. Ash (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does MTV Iggy count as a source? [60] Tom Danson (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bangs is definitely notable, he recently performed at the Big Day Out festival WHY YALL HATIN ON MAH BOI BANGS??? 118.210.72.172 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny that we have an article for this guy, I just saw this video a few weeks ago. Still, he's not notable, WP:BLP1E at best for the viral video. If for some strange reason he actually gets signed and charts (or receives additional coverage) then it can be reconsidered then. JBsupreme (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Now a sourced stub instead of an unsourced copyvio; renominate if deemed necessary. Sandstein 06:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Donovan (reporter)[edit]

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

Barely-sourced BLP of a non-notable TV reporter. The only "source" is to his company bio. Unit Anode 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the emmy could be sourced this reporter might be notable. However comparing the article and the website bio most of the paragraphs are cut and pasted exactly. I'd have to say Delete as Copyvio.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. This probably should have been speedied. My bad. Unit Anode 16:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyvios are removed on sight and don't have to go through process so I blanked all the content. Assuming an emmy confers notability the article can be kept as a stub. I reworded this sourced claim so it's not a copyvio. I'll leave it up to others whether it's worth keeping this as a sub-stub if not expanded.- Wikidemon (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that he has been the subject of numerous media coverage, particularly when he joined KYW: [61]. Warrah (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disclaimer: I fully endorse the stubbification of this and any other unsourced WP:BLP article. Briefly checking I see that this journalist has received enough coverage to meet WP:BIO, including a few awards. JBsupreme (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey "KranK" Kuzmin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrey "KranK" Kuzmin

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

Nothing contentious, however I can't find any sources for the asserted notability. Article cites awards that would be better placed at an article about the company. The only things is that he is on an advisory board for a game convention (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=10707), which I don't feel is notable enough. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The awards appear rather obscure, and although Perimeter (video game) received some plaudits for its technical innovations, it does not appear enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Pcap ping 15:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. LotLE×talk 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Perry[edit]

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

I de-prodded this unsourced biography article after the user removed the original template, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Normally I would wait for the article to be built up a bit, but I could find absolutely no sources. Googling any combination of "colin perry" + "1966" / "colin perry" + "strongest", "man of iron", etc. Doesn't seem notable (or true). DMCer™ 05:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this for a speedy delete. There is no credible assertion of notability on the page, nor does a Google search reveal anything that might be added to the page to justify its inclusion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've also been unable to overcome the verifiability issues. The other claims of being related to notable people are useless. —LedgendGamer 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. There is no way in hell this deserves the full five or seven days, whatever. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Britain's strongest man 1966 is clearly an assertion of importance so AFD is appropriate not CSD, and therefore I've declined the speedy. I couldn't find online references - nor would particularly expect to for a 1960s title, so unless someone can trackdown offline references I support this AFD closing as deletion. I've also fixed the capitalisation of his name, so if this does close as delete then both Colin Perry and Colin perry will need to go. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. A7 wouldn't work here/declined. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Up in the Air (film). Cirt (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release strategy of Up in the Air[edit]

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

I've never seen a page like this for any other film. I don't see anything particularly notable about the way in which Up in the Air was released. Macarion (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Up in the Air. Clearly insufficiently notable to justify its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main film article. No notability outside the film asserted. Dancarney (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that Up in the Air (film) still has quite a healthy-sized section on Release Strategy, so it would be appreciated if merge votes would specify whether they really mean that all these additional details need to be put back into that section. If you don't agree with keeping the article on its own, a redirect (or just delete, as this is an unlikely search term) would seem to make more sense. Propaniac (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Propaniac. If anyone wants to take time doing a merge, the best idea IMO is to park a copy at Talk:Up in the Air/Draft or some similar title, advise on the talk page of that article, and leave it up to interested editors to follow up. It's not our job to execute complicated merges. The topic is obviously not notable in its own merit. Chutznik (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge trim it down and merge the salient details. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there details in this article, that are not currently present in the Release Strategy section at Up in the Air (film), that you believe should be merged back into the film article? Propaniac (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the section is large enough, but there may be details that others would want merged back in, and I would have no problem with the section being expanded with additional information from this fork. If a merge vote is the majority vote then the article can be stripped back then merged once it is down to an agreed size and this article would become a redirect or deleted. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have delusions of Up in the Air (film) becoming a GA or even an FA article some day, so I would like other editors to be very judicious in what we put back into that article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GA or FA are noble aims, I trimmed the plot with those aims in mind, but an AfD is not the place to work this out. The talk page of the film article, or talk page of this article would be that place. If the majority opinion is to merge this information then the article will stay until that is done, or until another editor becomes frustrated and starts a second AfD. Either way this is not the place for merge suggestions, especially as that would assume the end result of an ongoing AfD, and if the majority of editors feel this article fails the GNG then it should be deleted. If you want to put the time in then userfy this article and allow the deletion and then prepare the merge in userspace and add it back to the main article or trim the article back to the bare essentials and show those voting delete what you want to merge and get them to change delete to merge votes. All editors should be working at all times to make every article on wikipedia a GA or FA, but merge proposals can't be handled adequately in the middle of a deletion procedure. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment If "Merge" ends up as the consensus of this AFD, and none of the "Merge" votes bother to address what exactly should be merged, I would hope the closing admin simply redirects the term instead of picking arbitrary information to stick back in the film article. The content currently in the film article reflects what was deemed to be the most important information -- what would be merged from this spin-off if it weren't already present. Propaniac (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am in full agreement with Propaniac. None of the "Merge" votes have clearly adressed what exactly should be merged. Redirecting the term seems to be the better option here.--BIG FOUR ! ! ! ! 05:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
Comment This article was originally the contents of Up in the Air (film)#Strategy. Under the advice of a number of other editors, including Propaniac, we trimmed that section down to better fit the standards of WikiProject Films. Merging the contents or a sub-set thereof of this article back into Up in the Air (film) is probably not viable.
My personal preference would be to keep this article and refine it, since I developed most of contents of Up in the Air (film) as Jason Reitman, George Clooney, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga were promoting the film. I do, however, admit to feelings of parenthood towards Up in the Air (film) and this article, so I do not have an unbiased point of view in this matter. This article may have already served its purpose and may have outlived its usefulness.
Regardless, I believe there is interesting or unusual, albeit not notable to many people, information in this article:

Jason Reitman indicated that he could relate to that lifestyle of the lead character, Ryan Bingham, and he enjoys it himself. Reitman said, "I think when you're in an airplane it's the last refuge for the people who enjoy being alone and reading a book." This provides insight into why Reitman spent so much time on the road promoting his films and why he chose to adapt the Walter Kirn's book Up in the Air.
Reitman documented his experiences promoting the film. He took photos of everyone who interviewed him and recorded videos in each and every city he visited. He edited these images together into a short video titled Lost In The Air: The Jason Reitman Press Tour Simulator.[62][63] This video provides insight into the film release process.
Peter Sciretta of /Film and Alex Billington of Firstshowing.net interviewed Jason Reitman on video at the Telluride Film Festival in a Gondola. [64] [65] Their interview is cited as Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-SFilm_2009-09-16-21 and Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-FS_2009-09-16-22, but not included in this article. Jason Reitman can be seen taking video of Mr. Sciretta and Mr. Billington during the interview. Reitman's video is included in Lost in the Air.
Up in the Air was principally filmed in St. Louis, Missouri. Up in the Air was the centerpiece for the 18th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival with Jason Reitman and Michael Beugg in attendance. Kevin Renick, a St. Louis musician who wrote the song Up in the Air, performed half an hour prior to the screening. Yukon Jake, a local St. Louis band who performed during the wedding scene in Up in the Air, provided entertainment during the party held prior to the screening.
Paramount flew 50 members of the press to New York with Anna Kendrick, Sad Brad Smith and representatives of American Airlines to promote Up in the Air. The film was shown on the aircraft's video monitors during the flight from New York to Los Angeles. American Airlines provided the Boeing 767 gratis. Smith performed a few songs including Help Yourself in the aisle of the aircraft. I have not been able to find another example of a press conference for a film being held in aircraft flying coast to coast.
American Airlines and Hilton Hotels were heavily involved in the production, filming and promotion of Up in the Air. Including that information in the main article seems like it would be tangential, but it would be more appropriate for this article.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just my two cents here, but this is an well-written, unusual article with interesting contents. Zmalk (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I discounted all arguements relating to the previous AfD. Consensus can change. The question is then is there enough notable material outside that which could be at International recognition of Kosovo? The majority of valid votes say no. However, there's enough disagreement to call no consensus. I suggest serveral months before a renom. Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Kosovo relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

looking at the previous AfD, the keep votes provided very little in terms of significant third party coverage of actual relations. Australia's relations with Kosovo don't extend much more than International recognition of Kosovo. yes Serbia got upset with Australia, but they got upset with every country that recognised Kosovo. yes Australia took some refugees but so did almost every rich nation. Australia has no peacekeepers in Kosovo, no diplomatic mission and no bilateral agreements. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Either way, no reason for its own article. Either delete or merge with Foreign_relations_of_Australia or the equivalent for Kosovo. There is no good reason to have a separate article covering this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added what seems to be the necessary information to Foreign relations of Australia. StAnselm (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the requirements of WP:N just as it did when it was nominated last time. Renominating articles until you get the result you prefer is not productive.-- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note that consensus can change, and it was in no way a clear cut keep last time. I am renominating because of the lack of significant third party coverage besides the routine recognition of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything untoward about renominating an article six months after it is closed as no consensus. Many articles get deleted on their 2nd, 3rd or subsequent nominations. If an article is closed as a "no consensus", it is incumbent on all of us to try to reach a consensus the second time around. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mkativerata. if it was an almost unanimous keep last time then it would not be productive to renominate. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting the results you want, doesn't mean you should nominate it again months later, and keep on trying until it ends the way you want it to. Why not contact everyone who participated last time, and ask them if their opinions have changed. I strongly doubt they would. Dream Focus 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that has any relevance outside of Australia's recognition of Kosovo, which is covered in International recognition of Kosovo. More people favored a delete than a keep last time, though it wasn't overwhelming (8 vs. 5) and it closed as a no consensus. Still, the reasons advanced for keep were along the lines of "all relations between countries are notable" or "all relations with Australia are notable" or "all relations with Kosovo are notable" which is why we have articles called Foreign relations of Australia. As LibStar points out, Australia doesn't have peacekeepers in Kosovo, nor diplomatic personnel nor treaties-- nor any trade that I can see. Mandsford (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as explained by Mandsford MilborneOne (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies notability requirement per User:Mattinbgn above and the numerous independent 3rd party sources at Google News covering Australia's recognition of Kosovo, several of which are included in article. Suggest that if there is a real concern about the notability of this article, nominator (who initiated the first Afd) notify all participants from the first discussion that he has renominated the article for deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's recognition of Kosovo like many countries is covered in International recognition of Kosovo. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes there's nothing else to the relationship than the recognition, which is obviously not true. More information has been added since this Afd was started.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes there is more such as Serbia being upset and Australia accepting refugees, but this applies to most Western countries and Kosovo. there is no real relationship beyond recognition, you can scrape the barrel as much as you want. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article and you'll find I've added information sourced from the New York Times, the BBC, the Telegraph. Hardly barrel-scraping. I see that you haven't taken my suggestion that you alert the rest of the people involved in the first discussion (raising the specter of bad faith editing) so I guess I'll have to take that upon myself. Your arguments are against policy and your continued attempts to delete these articles are generally detrimental to this project. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here we go again, not debating the notability but resorting to "your continued attempt to delete these articles are generally detrimental to this project". WP:KETTLE on your part, you failed to notify me (and other AfD participants) of the deletion review for Romania Sri Lanka relations LibStar (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe that's because you didn't ask. More to the point, a deletion review is an appeal to an administrator based on the perception that there has been inappropriate use of policy, it's not an attempt to find a new consensus on the facts like we have here. As far as debating the notability, I think I've made my points and you should know where I stand. There is significant 3rd party coverage of Australia's recognition of Kosovo, an essential element of foreign relations between nation state. On top of that element of the relationship, there was significant 3rd party coverage of the Kosovar refugees is Australia before the recognition. That issue's not covered in the article International recognition of Kosovo nor should it be. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it's clear that you want every bilateral article kept. I support many combinations being kept but not this one. one does not need to ask about being notified of deletion review when you openly questioned my nomination. that is a something you complain about when others don't do it. WP:KETTLE. A deletion review is not a one way conversation with an admin, it still uses consensus of several users particularly those that participated in the AfD to come to an outcome, you're trying to pretend notification is not necessary. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to Cdog, although he does pretty much seem to want all of these kept, he did notify those who !voted delete the last time around of the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes I note that, but in a deletion review in trying to get a delete overturned he failed to notify those who !voted in the AfD including myself as nominator (which given that the majority voted delete...) then he complains and gets upset that I don't notify people in a renomination, I've participated in 100s of renominations and rarely seen that happen. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar, if really thing I should have notified you about that, why don't you try to have Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review changed, because as of right now, there's only a responsibility to notify the deleting admin (which I did [66]). Since this is pretty off topic, and the relevant editors have now been notified, why don't you let me have the last word on this one.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is insufficient coverage of this bilateral relationship to warrant its own article. The bilateral relationship is not notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified all the editors to this discussion who commented at the first discussion except those who I have noticed have already commented here and those that have been permanently blocked.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little has changed in the article since the last time I !voted delete. (And I note that almost all of the changes happened after it was nom'd again. The article say pretty much untouched since the last time). Not even an embassy in Kosovo. Australia allowed some refugees to stay there for a while, before sending them home. Refused to take in refugees. No evidence of significant bilateral agreements. In short, nothing beyond the mere pedestrian government interactions. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It was OK last time, and it remains OK. That Australia decided to recognize the country is important to both Australia and to Kosovo. That recognition all by itself might make an article, quite apart from the general one on recognition of Kosovo.-- there are enough sources for it. As there are other relationships as well, this article is appropriate. There are trading relationships, for example, which need to be added. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what are the trading relationships between Australia and Kosovo? LibStar (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing them is enough to make an article? So since every nation on the planet recognizes Iceland, we could justify an article for every one of them? The article Iceland-Ghana relations should be a great reading experience. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Tuvalu recognises Luxembourg, perhaps we should create an article? there has to be a few sources which say this right? LibStar (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the GNGs? Don't they apply to articles like this one too? Yilloslime ^T_C 15:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I second DGG. Rebecca (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is notable for several reasons. It gives a history of Australia with Kosovo going back to 1999. This includes Australia giving aid to Kosovo. It also mentions refugees from Kosovo being granted with Australian visas. It mentions the recognition, diplomatic relations with one another and it mentions Australia at the ICJ, which I have recently expanded. All this proves notability of the article. This article goes far beyond Australia recognising Kosovo as some users have suggested. Also I think it was in bad taste that LibStar did not notify me the creator of the article when he/she put nominated it for deletion. IJA (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if at first you don't succeed... the arguments in the prior discussion still stand and I see nothing in the nomination to indicate that circumstances have changed since then. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per User:IJA - Canadian Bobby (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, and also as article has been further improved since nom by editor Cdogsimmons. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these are the extent of improvements by Cdogsimmons [67], Australia like many countries have at one stage or another refused to take refugees from one country or another. and as I said in the nomination, Kosovo refugees were relocated to most Western countries. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The repeated attempts to have these relations article deleted is wasting a lot of people's time (including my own). Since this issue has come up repeatedly, I'm going to quote the policy at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette: "If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed." I suggest the nominator nominate all these relations articles so we can find a general consensus about them and put this issue to rest.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought to my attention that at least one editor thinks this comment was off-topic. I disagree but perhaps there is a more appropriate forum to discuss the general issue. If you'd like to add your thoughts on my above suggestion I invite you to do so at my talk page.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no this debate was brought up about 8 months ago. those wanting to keep these type of articles strongly opposed group nominations, so we are left with individual nominations which I agree can be time wasting but the keep voters want it that way, I will say that I agree many are notable but many are not. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- No-one is arguing that all bilateral relationship articles should be either kept or deleted. A case-by-case approach is entirely proper as all bilateral relationships will be different. If you think a guideline for bilateral relationships is necessary, Wikipedia talk:Notability is the appropriate place to raise it. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Solely on the basis that Kosovo is not a country and that I suspect articles like this might be trying to make the case that it is, in violation of WP:NPOV. We don't have, for example, Australia-California relations. On the other hand, there was considerable scope in Australia's foreign policy regarding Kosovar refugees at the time of the NATO conflict. I don't think anyone would make the case that now, or any time recently, there has been a significant relationship between the two entities. I would vote differently on other "* relations" articles, especially those where a demonstrable and verifiable current relationship (or current antagonism, for that matter) exists. Orderinchaos 10:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Admin concluding this AfD I don't think User:Orderinchaos's comment should be taken seriously. It is a very biased and is a POV comment. His/her reasons do not justify deletion of this article, they rather just express his/her own personal opinion on the Kosovo dispute. He/she needs to understand that WP:NOTAFORUM. IJA (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I make the policy point that there is an NPOV issue with having a bilateral relations article between a country and a territory with a disputed country status (effectively, a region with no legal status beyond its own declaration of independence and its recognition by some other countries). I make the notability point that there is no significant relationship between the government of Kosovo and the government of Australia to merit an article. At the time that Australia had a significant engagement with the region (accepting the refugees in 1999), the region was indisputably part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but Australia's engagement was not with the government of that entity but with NATO. So the part relating to refugees should go in Australia-NATO relations if such an article exists; the rest would not hold up an article of any kind. Yes, it's my opinion, but informed opinions are the building blocks of consensus. I don't much care if the debate doesn't go the way I think it should, but there's no harm in putting my view forward and arguing it. Orderinchaos 15:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is important is that Australia says that Kosovo is a country, recognises and conducts diplomatic relations with Kosovo therefore that is one reason as to why there is so such thing as "Australia-Kosovo relations". It is not POV to say this, it is fact. I have also since pointed out in the article that Kosovo is only partially recognised and that it's status is disputed to improve NPOV. This will help to make sure that the reader is not misguided and will warn them of Kosovo's disputed status. IJA (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think Orderinchaos has a valid point. I disagree with him about keeping the article, but he has a point. What could push the notability of Kosovo's relations over the edge is that it is recognized as a nation state by other nation states. I don't think we can say that Kosovo is not a country. This displays obvious bias. But we should certainly recognize the fact that certain countries (which are generally recognized as countries) do not recognize it as a country. A lot of countries didn't recognize Israel for a long time. China doesn't recognize Taiwan as a separate country. It's relevant, especially here, where the recognition by Australia is a significant factor in the relations. In my opinion, in these circumstances that recognition should actually be given extra weight.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Australia's recognition should be given extra weight, especially as it was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo and because it promised to lobby for recognition of Kosovo. I do oppose presenting Kosovo as a fully recognised country, I think it is important that we mention that it's status is disputed. However I don't think this can be justified as a reason to say that we shouldn't have articles regarding Kosovo's relations with other countries. Regardless of what one may think, Kosovo conducts in diplomatic relations, that is a fact. We could mention that other countries refuse to recognise Kosovo and engage in diplomatic relations, but Australia is one of the 65 counties which does so. IJA (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced and enough depth for a standalone article. Remember 14 facts from 14 sources are mathematically identical to 14 facts from a single source. They have the same depth of coverage and this is not synthesis. Wikipedia says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Taking 14 facts from 14 sources is just standard research for any Wikipedia writer. Taking 14 facts from a single source isn't research, it is just condensing someone else's research into a Reader's Digest version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has improved since it was nominated. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is fine, just as it was months ago when it was nominated by the same person who nominated it this time. Dream Focus 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the last result was no consensus, so not a clear keep or delete result. consensus can change and renomination can allow a more clear result to be obtained. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, means you didn't get the result you wanted, and are going to try again. You don't hope the people last time will show up again and change their minds, you instead hope that whatever random group appears in the AFD will this time agree with you. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise. Dream Focus 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am having trouble seeing how deletion of this article improves the project. I know that's a 10,000 ft. comment, but I see a lot of back and forth on this AfD and the prior AfD, and that's always a foundational question I ask myself in an AfD like this.--Milowent (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, per gingerbomb, per Mandsford, and per my reasoning last time. This topic fails the general notability guidelines: there are no independent, third party sources that cover this topic directly and/or in detail. Yes, there are scattered news media references to Australia's handling of the Balkans war, and yes Cdog has done as job as could be done synthesizing them into a treatment of the subject; but no, this is not a proper way to build an encyclopedia (which is supposed to be a tertiary source). The subject matter is best handled in International recognition of Kosovo and Foreign_relations_of_Australia. (For the record I notified on this AfD on my userpage.)Yilloslime ^T_C 16:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CEGUI[edit]

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

All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google books indicates some coverage here, but the book is not even available for limited preview. It gets a number of citations in academic papers [68]; this one has some details on the trouble they had with it; some use described here. OGRE's book says it's the "official" GUI toolkit for that engine. There's also a tutorial on using the two together on OGRE's site. A class presentation; you can generally find more like this in .edu sites on their graphics or game courses. So, ... Pcap ping 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, weak keep (1st choice) or merge with OGRE, although that would be rather unwieldy. Pcap ping 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above. LotLE×talk 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has around 175K downloads excluding packaged versions distributed by 3rd Parties --220.233.192.133 (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Onofri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

now that a few years have passed. surely WP:ONEVENT applies here. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad, but still this is WP:ONEEVENT through and through. JBsupreme (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to his family months after his death? How did he influence matters in the long term? If nothing noteworthy happened after it, then this one must be deleted. Alexius08 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only notability is attached to the death, and while that's tragic, it's not really the basis for an article. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trenes de Juguete[edit]

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

Album for artist that does not have own article; per precedent at WP:ALBUMS before albums can be considered notable an article should be created for the artist and that article should pass the notability test first. Also, no reliable sources can be found for the album beyond blogs and download sites. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources and so fails the general notability guideline. It seems absurd and contrary to experience though to insist that a notable release must come from a notable artist. So many one hit wonders, and almost none of them notable save through their songs, i.e. notable single "Ring My Bell" by forgettable Anita Ward. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings). J04n(talk page) 19:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omnium (album)[edit]

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

Album by a theater group that is sold privately. WP:NALBUMS notes that "promo-only" albums in general are not notable, and this album might fall under that definition (IMO). Has not received any coverage in reliable sources. Also, no real improvements to article since Notability tag was added in nearly two years ago. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the general notability guidelines. Google returns nothing relevant to this subject. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Alan - talk 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furry Techno[edit]

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

According to the text, even the band does not know if this is an authorized release (a statement that itself needs to be referenced). Difficult to establish notability if album originated in possibly unauthorized form at the download site Megaupload that itself raises issues (see the Criticism section of that page). Per WP:NALBUMS, cannot find significant coverage beyond various download sites and mirrors of this WP article. The album is not even listed at the official band website. And finally, there have been no edits from the person(s) behind the article since edit tag was added six months ago.DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources for this album, which is odd since it includes a charting single. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Demos are generally not notable, and as I can find no significant coverage for this, it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deine mutter[edit]

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

Using full AfD process because of recent editing activity in the article. Regardless, it is an unreleased and therefore nonexistent album for a band that does not have its own article. Cannot find reliable sources (at least in English) beyond book that is already referenced in the article. (See WP:NALBUMS) Album article may become viable in the future if an article is created for the band and notability is established there, and if additional reliable sources can be found for the notability of the album. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to believe this a hoax. Google returns three non-WP hits for "die unterhaltungsmöglichkeiten"+"deine mutter" (both with and sans umlaut), and neither the US Library of Congress nor Google Books has a record of the cited source. The fatherland as "the 'mother' of the Rhineland"? Unmöglich. Without reliable sources, this subject fails the general notability guidelines. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good work by Yabby2bhere above. While investigating the book used as a source in the article I accidentally got steered into this other book so my search was faulty. Otherwise, the similarly titled book used as a source in the article is indeed obscure, at best. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3Quarter-Aiming[edit]

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

Non-notable. Although it appears to be satisfactorily referenced, there are multiple problems with the references. Three are from the website itself, four are from forum posts, and 3 are unverifiable (including a completely broken, possibly fabricated link). The only claim of notability that may hold any water is the world record claim (which I've been unable to verify), and doesn't even guarantee notability. —LedgendGamer 01:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom - Additionally, having played the games myself, I strongly suspect that the claim of 46 full-time graphic designers, developers and coders is complete bogus. —LedgendGamer 01:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage whatsoever of this company (or its games, for that matter) in a reliable source. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cluskey[edit]

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

Contested PROD of a journalist/poet. A few of his poems have been published, but I can't find evidence that he has won any awards or is widely cited. I can't find anything demonstrating notability via a Google search. I believe he fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO in general. There was also a discussion at the COI noticeboard about this article. PDCook (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chutznik (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the criteria of WP:ENT, which includes opinion makers and television personalities. As a reporter/journalist, he has not made a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution" and there is no evidence of a "fan base". In my opinion, WP:ENT is not ideal for journalism, but, nonetheless, just doing ones job - albeit in the public eye - is not enough to make someone notable. Cluskey is not widely cited or referred to by other independent sources, which is a strong indicator of non-notability. He has not, as far as I can tell, won any notable awards or been recognised by his peers or profession as being notable. All this leads me to conclude he is not notable as a journalist or opinion maker. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G-O-R-O-G[edit]

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

Article covers what is supposedly a popular sort of miniature golf played in corporate offices, but there's no evidence that this isn't something trivial. My prod (with text of "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day" was seconded by Ttonyb1, but then removed by the creator. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources cited other than the creator's own experience. Tiderolls 00:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, other than one blog post I can't find evidence that this even exists. I'll grant that it might, but it certainly hasn't achieved encyclopedic notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Soundly fails any sort of notability. Can not find anything to support. ttonyb (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT - Wikipedia isn't for random games that someone just invented. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Li[edit]

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

An old version says that she was the first female to win an international karate championship in 1990. However, I can't find any source at all, and the World Karate Federation's website of records doesn't have any entry for her [69]. Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless anyone can find sources or additional information that would make this remotely verifiable, which I haven't been able to do. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability. As currently written, the article seems like CSDA7 material. PDCook (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did the author mean to describe the Street Fighter character, Chun Li? Blodance the Seeker 03:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that, actually, and checked, but this just seems to be part of a collection of articles on Karate International and associated people. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this is either a cute SF2 hoax or a real article which lacks sources to show notability. either way, unless sources are presented, it should be deleted Theserialcomma (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above; not much more needs to be said. Airplaneman ^talk 03:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Once deleted, a redirect to Chun Li wouldn't hurt. JBsupreme (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is using no sources and even if the subject was indeed a Chinese karate practitioner, I'm sure that there would be a lot of those people out there in the same way that there are lots of waiters, accountants, doctors, librarians...I think you understand what I am saying. Being one of many, they are not notable for inclusion if that is the only reason the article exists.--$$$BILLION DOLLARS$$$ 06:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
Delete I have had a good look through google news, google books, a regular google search. I'm not seeing anything that supports keeping Chung Li's page at all. I also agree with an earlier comment, it might be a hoax of sorts. Either way, Wikipedia gains little, if anything from this page, so I think that the delete button could really come in handy for this article.--Prodigy96 (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (another sock of a banned user. Pcap ping 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Snow delete WP:SNOW. The support for this article's deletion is overwhelming. I think we can close this.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 23:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Further discussion of moves, merges, and other editorial type decisions can take place on the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance-pop[edit]

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

What is exactly "dance-pop"? I guess dance-pop is just all dance-oriented pop music, dance-pop is not a genre. Only source in the article is All Music [70], it says: "Dance-Pop was an outgrowth of disco" (see that capitalization) - it reminds me a similiar problem with Disco-Pop and Post-disco. I propose a move of this article to disco article section disco#Dance-pop or dance-pop mentioning in Disco#Influence on other music. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extras: dance-pop was always a WP:OR problem [71], and this lame-sourced edition (see dance-pop) is in the Wikipedia since 1. 6. 2007, 13:14 [72]. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take some time to look into sources for this one. For information for the moment, the best source I can find to support this is as a genre is [73], but the same author seems to suggest that this is the same as disco [74]. It is not clear to me at the moment how this can be distinguished from, say, Hi-NRG.--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems (source no #2) like he means [dance] pop/disco music, but he's not mentioned genre. Source no #1 (nice source) author puts dance-pop in the relation with new romantics (not a genre too), bubblegum (pop, probably) and power pop. But still it looks like "dance-oriented pop music made by Spice Girls, Bananarama, Kylie Minogue, Paula Abdul and Stock, Aitken & Waterman", not a genre. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment: The fact being is, its sort of useless to keep or delete the article, because all music genre are still based on theory, which over 90% of them aren't proven. All music genre article right now pretty much uses the Template:Infobox Music genre. Theoretically citing things in wikipedia that doesn't have a methodology is synthesis, (WP:SYN) and citing theory are considered fancrufting / culting. (WP:FANCRUFT)

So here's my suggestion, since they are really no understanding in music genre yet (aka studies on musicology ethnomusicology, sociomusicology, zoomusicology is nowhere near completion) nor is there any scientific structured concept, hypothesis, model, theory, visualization...etc being formulated or proposed in music genre (yet). I think we should create a speculative fiction template similar to Template:Speculative fiction all and Template:Sex in SF as seen in philosophy theory, science fiction, LGBT/BSDM topics and request expert attention to expand on it and wait until there is a valid research that we can cite. List, Glossary, Index article likewise to List of science fiction genres are also accepted. Inline citation will need to verified very carefully in subarticle probably like much forms, beat, melody, rhythm, tone, variation and direct them using Template:Selfref if necessary likewise to article Pronoun.

Note: Template:Infobox Music genre doesn't use follow any sort of hierarchy, it only give the background information of the genre, and since we don't have enough understanding about music genre, obviously there is no suggested standard of documentation to follow likewise in other industry. --173.183.102.184 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I think deletion is not a good idea, dance-pop is for music history significant, but dance-pop should be merged with disco article, because according to AMG source, dance-pop was "product" of disco. Moving the article - support or oppose? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As long there is a new movement that get created/conjured up again without a structured method/way of doing things, there is going to another article created and we are just going to be an endless warzone. I really suggest reviewing past music genre articles and undelete them and re-reviewing them. Stop acting irresponsible and not giving users the time to improve an article, be legitimate for heaven sake. If most navbox in wikipedia can make use of their time in transwiki a lot of information onto Wiktionary regardless of verification then we should do for the same in wikipedia. The policy are for content monitoring they are not for technical information monitoring. Meaning, an information may follow the fallacy of composition of logic, but its still have a form. (aka just because a math equation is incorrectly that doesn't constitute it isn't an equation, it just an unbalanced equation). --173.183.102.184 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request. To be honest I cannot understand what point is being made here. Are you saying that we should not delete because it will be re-created? If that was true we would not have a deletion process. Or perhaps that there is no point in trying to define what is a genre. It is not an easy matter, but it is possible to achieve a consensus over these issues, that is how the process works on Wikipedia. Perhaps you could provide a concise summary of your argument, as a brief version may be easier for editors to engage with.--SabreBD (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kur ykh 00:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Partly tautologous ("dance pop is dance-oriented pop music") and partly doomed to have hopelessly muddled inclusion criteria. This entry casts the net pretty wide, which doesn't make it obvious that the term "dance pop" is used in a clear way to pick out a specific genre. Hairhorn (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After looking through the sources and following the above discussion, I reached an opinion almost identical to that of Hairhorn above, so I second his/her vote. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move to disco as a sub-section, as suggested by nom. I have been unable to find further sources that can be seen to outline this as a distinct and notable genre.--SabreBD (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is based on sources, AfD appears to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dlabtot (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on sources, but the sources don't seem to demonstrate that this is a well-defined term that's actually notable. Hairhorn (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on sources, that even doesn't exist. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term is widely used, and has a definition. Definitions: AllMusic.com; Real.com. Use of term (from just the past few days): Chicago Sun Times Jan. 29, Variety Jan. 28, New York Post Jan. 29, Guardian Jan. 16. --Baron Larf 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of a term being used isn't necessarily evidence of a consistent (or notable) definition. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical pacifist for similar points. And Allmusic manages to get all sorts of stuff wrong, some of their band bios are laughably inaccurate. Hairhorn (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is All Music a RS at all? Some say these "anonymous" contributions (I mean these genre definitions) are um.. anonymous so it is not a RS. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is one of the most reputable online sources for music. Just saying. — ξ ^xplicit 06:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it! Thanks for your answer. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –SpacemanSpiff 00:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Whittaker[edit]

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

Delete are bishops inherently notable? There is basically nothing here in this bio - like I assume he's no longer alive, but we're not told that, nor when he died, nor anything else he did...in essence this is a non-bio and hardly encyclopedic. The fact that this guy was bishop for the years he was is duly documented in the article on the diocese so nothing would be lost by deleting this.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Diocese of Medak. There is a policy (don't remember which) that says that being the first one of something is inherently notable, but doesn't pass WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E, whichever would apply. Of course, there is absolutely no content here other than to indicate that he was the bishop for that period of time, and that fact is covered in entirety in the diocese article. Ivanvector (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and a comment: Why did this come to AfD anyway? This is an easy candidate for a bold redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the coverage in Life magazine and the reference in a book to Whittaker's earlier role as principal of a theological college in Medak. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, keep with your additions. Nicely done. Ivanvector (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eastmain above--Sodabottle (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops in Major ?Christina denominations are generally notable. The problem with this article is that it is a mere stub, in need of expansion. His membership of a board of governors is however not appropriate content for a succession box. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keap. With Eastmain's additions there's also a plausible case for WP:PROF #6. And in any case WP:GNG seems to be met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources, should be more written about him. MiRroar (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems good now. Another nice save from Eastmain :) fetchcomms☛ 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Schlumberger. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schlumberger Business Consulting[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. unreferenced article that looks like something from their website. hardly any third party coverage [75]. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Forbes story would appear to be the only source that's both reliable, and not of limited interest and circulation. The rest would appear to be various white papers from industry groups and the like. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis' assessment of the sources. Does not pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the company passes the general notability guideline. The specialized publications (Arabian Oil & Gas and Upstream (newspaper)) cited as references in the article are both reliable sources. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schlumberger. The company is pretty obviously notable, and the consulting arm is a significant part of the company.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Macedonian Cultural Artistic Associations of Victoria[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews. [76]. google mainly has directory listings. [77] LibStar (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have any significant coverage whatsoever. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in reliable sources is provided. Robofish (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayde_Lovell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jayde Lovell

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

Coach of a team in a competition organized by a private entity. No sources found apart from the one on the article, after 5-6 pages it tells that I need to subscribe so I can't check if it's only a passing mention to the name of the coach. Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borders on a speedy delete for not even containing pretensions to notability. I can find no significant coverage of her. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gwendolen Clarke[edit]

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

Non-notable city alderman. My PROD was removed with the comment, "Sources are available, though I don't have the time to expand this article," and my subsequent attempt to ask that editor for more information about the sourcing went unanswered. For my part, I haven't been able to find anything in books, news archives, or elsewhere, under this name or possible variations. There might be something in offline sources, but I can't find any hint that it would amount to significant coverage. For what it's worth, she appears to be the third female alderman in the history of Edmonton, Alberta. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Edmonton Public Library reference cited in the article makes reference to two photograph sources, which would have been accompanied by a caption and probably an article as well: Edmonton Bulletin, December 9, 1942, p. 13 and Edmonton Journal, March 27, 1972, p. 34, with the 1972 reference presumably being an obituary. There are probably other print references from the time she was running for election and the period she held office. So the references exist, but cannot be found with Google, and it's not certain that they would be enough to establish notability. The article might be saved if someone were to visit the microfilm room at the Edmonton Public Library to see what these articles and photo captions said, but that's not certain either. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also fails WP:N no significant 3rd party coverage that would allow her to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After posting the above I noticed that she was married to someone who passes WP:N and who has his own article Joseph Clarke and that all of the information (or at least the substantive stuff) is included already in his article... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, alderwoman. Abductive (reasoning) 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I hate to see a Canadian politician article be deleted, WP:POLITICIAN prescribes significant press coverage as the criterion, and I can't find any using Google News (or Google for that matter). In case anyone was wondering, the Edmonton Public Library article is available here. This doesn't establish notability as the criteria require multiple sources, not just one. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Mkrtchyan[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not competed at highest level which is World Figure Skating Championships. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has competed at the highest level of national sport, and is a national silver medalist. Kolindigo (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

being a national medallist is not meeting WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - competing at World Junior level satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Ivanvector (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no it doesn't, criterion 2 specifically says "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.". LibStar (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The World Junior Championship is the highest level available to junior athletes. Are you suggesting all junior athletes should be automatically excluded? Ivanvector (talk) 06:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes this precedent already exists in WP. if they are good enough they should translate over the highest level amateur. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Junior Level" is not the "highest amateur level". In any case it fails the general notability guideline of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Countrywide Legal Indemnities[edit]

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

Delete - non notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. This is about a title insurance company. While references have been added, I don't think they get to significance. The only reference added that appears to be primarily about this business is the Solicitor's Journal.[78] This would also appear to be a reliable source.[79] But the BBC News article quotes personnel on an unrelated matter.[80] The other references are product announcements and inclusions on "top 100" lists, neither of which constitute significant coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but barely. Sources added by User: Eastmain establish notability.--Pink Bull 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has good references now. Chutznik (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IceRocket[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There was a very limited AfD discussion about this subject two years ago, where the result was keep, but after two years, nobody has bothered to provide reliable sourcing. I see news mentions, but not news articles, about this site. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief Google News searched turned up this (relatively) recent review. Plus, reputable media outlets like PCWorld cite IceRocket as a source for data, which speaks to its notability. That, combined with the sources cited in the last AfD discussion, should be more than enough to satisfy WP:WEB. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sad and unloved article to be sure, but the subject appears to pass WP:WEB. It seems like it failed to really take off, but still got massive media attention, especially when it first came out. I'm seeing plenty of Google Books hits too. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn: andyzweb (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recent coverage admittedly somewhat marginal and tending toward the trivial, but 04/05 coverage would appear to satisfy WP:WEB. A sampling: [81][82][83]. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After skimming the sources provided above, I think this subject meets WP:WEB. "Nobody's working on it" is generally an argument to avoid, but I'm willing to work on the article myself; hopefully that assuages the nominator's doubts. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that despite the many keep !votes here, this article remains completely unsourced. Not even a primary source to speak of. JBsupreme (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Major champions (chronologically)
Masters Tournament PGA Championship U.S. Open The Open Championship
Grand Slam (golf)