< 15 March	17 March >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Ivory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as the only claims to notability are that he was once chairman of a local constituency party and that his blog made disparaging comments about Tony Blair. Being a Prospective Parliamentary candidate is not enough. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s, as the "general rule" WP:POLITICIAN requires for candidates. Nothing here to suggest the general rule should not apply.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Redirect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s Dlohcierekim 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Only thing which covers him beyond bog-standard PPC coverage is his silly blog entry about the suicide of Tony Blair, but that's a clear WP:NOTNEWS. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN and is happerning to other PPC's that fail the test, no real refs so not notable. --Wintonian (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Incidentally, the "Trevor" rather than "Ivory" in the third paragraph is a dead giveaway it was written as a campaign piece... Wereon (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor -> Ivory fixed that. Dlohcierekim 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is documented in the last AfD, additional real refs were added by myself. See my last revision[1]. Politicalhack2008 (talk · contribs) removed all mention of the main story for which he is notable. I do agree that the event for which he is most notable is a single event. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now As the candidate for the party in 2nd place in 2005, he has a slim chance of election, but it should be culled as NN if he does not win at the General Election. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll need another AFD should he lose? With Redirect we get to keep our cake and eat it too. If he loses, we need do no more. If he wins, we revert the redirect and expand the article. As it sits, he clearly does not met the GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Dlohcierekim 18:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mkativerata. I appreciate John Vandenberg's work on sourcing it, but the incident seems too trivial, and squarely within the context of his political activities, so I still consider WP:POLITICIAN controlling. Ray^Talk 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowzilla[edit]

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

This article seems to me non-notable and non-encyclopedic. As I said previously on the talk page, I just don't see how a really big snowman that some guy built in his yard should be in the encyclopedia, even if the local newspaper covered it and the story got picked up by the wire services. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunncon13 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 March 2010

Weak keep - while technically properly sourced, I don't know if it's notable enough. Bearian (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was my main concern, not the sources. I didn't think it met the criteria for news events. Although I would also point out that only one source is reliable third party. Source number 2, boston.com, is a broken link. A search of the boston.com website reveals nothing about Snowzilla. Source number 3 is the Snowzilla website itself. OK, but questionable as self-published since it's 50% of the (working) sources. Dunncon13 (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As silly as it is, this snowman has garnered notoriety,and has been covered in press beyond its own locality of Anchorage, and that coverage has been sustained over multiple years. See MSNBC Dec 2005, Anchorage Daily, dec 2006, Washington Post, Jan 2007, Seattle Times, Dec 2008, Charlotte Observer, Dec 2008, Alaska Dispatch, Dec 2009.

Note that every one of those sources, other than the local ones, used an AP wire service article. All those papers picked up the AP story precisely because it WAS silly, not because it was important. Dunncon13 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - All of these newspapers exercise editorial control over their content. They don't print every single news service item that comes across the wire. If it only happened one year, then it'd be a blip of coverage. But this coverage has been sustained over multiple years. As such this is notable silliness. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the coverage annually recurring, rather than sustained. WP:EVENT says nothing about annual events. Snowzilla is an annual event, not notable in my view, but one that generates a flurry of coverage, so to speak, every year. An annual event is more likely to be notable than a one-time thing, I admit, but obviously there are non-notable annual events. For annual events, lasting effects should have to be something beyond just yearly news coverage of the event itself. Dunncon13 (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call the coverage what you will. I think that's getting into the realm of semantic hair splitting. If one reviews the general notability guidelines, one can see that there is significant coverage' as these news reports feature Snowzilla as the primary subject; the coverage is reliable coming from established newspapers with a reputation for editorial integrity; the sources are secondary being newspapers and not a direct report on the event; they are independent of the subject as these news items are not written by the person making Snowzilla. This meets the the guidelines for general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I do not intend to split semantic hairs, but I think this is perhaps the heart of the matter. I will agree that the general notability guidelines look like this should be a keep. But the event notability guidelines are more relevant because we are dealing with something that, if notable, is notable only because it has been in the news. Without news coverage, a series of big snowmen would clearly not merit an article. It's an annual news event, so the nature of the news coverage is the central question. From the events notability page, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Somewhat at odds with the general notability guidelines. Coverage WAS reliable and independent. But it wasn't sustained - it was temporary and not significant. Snowzilla happened multiple times, but each time the coverage was temporary - "during or immediately after" the event. Furthermore, say the event guidelines, "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows." None of that kind of coverage took place. Dunncon13 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already noted above, the event guidelines really speak to single events. A recurring event receiving recurring coverage would be notable as this is not just a flash in the pan. It is noted by newspapers, over and over again over time. Perhaps the difficulty for you is that this thing is admittedly silly, and in the whole scheme of life, the universe, and everything, it isn't at all important. Notability is somewhat related to importance, but as cautioned in our notability guidelines, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject..." We can all agree that it isn't important. But the fact the coverage keeps occurring each year indicates it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind that the thing itself is silly. I do think it's silly to have an encyclopedia article about it, but that's only because I don't think it meets the standards. Maybe it would be helpful for someone to think about event notability guidelines as they might pertain to annual events. Sure, annual recurrence increases likelihood of notability, but it doesn't automatically guarantee notability, does it? That kind of sounds like what you're saying: "coverage occurring every year indicates it is notable." I'm not so sure that's true. Dunncon13 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOT TABLOID. This is the sort of human interest story that is not encyclopedic. Perhaps the GNG is becoming an handicap to rational evaluation. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete - Not notable. As discussed in the WP:EVENT guidelines, without lasting significance, the news coverage doesn't mean much. Shock or "silly" news stories, absent any indication of some kind of historical significance, don't contribute to the notability of the subject. --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Standing the test of time is established with sustained coverage over time. This silly snowman has had that sustained coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated annual coverage != sustained coverage. There's no analysis, commentary, or other thoughtful discussion in any of the sources I was able to find - it's all "oh hai a giant snowman". If someone can find any reliable source that asserts that this snowman has some kind of significance to the culture of the U.S., Alaska, or even just Anchorage, I'll happily revise my opinion. That being said, a deeper read of some of the sources does mention that it also made international news (New York Daily News cites Russia and Japan), so I've revised to "weak delete" - the fact that it also made an international splash makes it somewhat more likely to pass the test of time, but I still don't think it's truly notable. --Darkwind (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree on what constitutes sustained coverage. As for impact to Anchorage, the articles provides documentation that "camera crews from Russia and Japan filmed the temporary sculpture", and caused sufficient traffic problems in the area to generate a cease-and-desist order from the municiap government. I'll grant that it's not world shaking impact, but most things aren't. And with the risk of invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, stuff like Solstice Cyclists also aren't that impactful, and garner yearly coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources is apparent. Regarding DGG's comment that "perhaps the GNG is becoming an handicap to rational evaluation" - while I agree with the sentiment at a superficial level and it pains me to have human interest guff on wikipedia, it is not for us to judge what is worthy of coverage. We have to apply objective standards, rather than subjective judgements like "tabloid" and "human interest", for determining what articles are appropriate for inclusion, and the GNG is the best objective standard possible. This has received ongoing coverage in reliable sources. That makes it encyclopaedic, whether we like it or not. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Solovieva[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Only claim to fame is as part of a winning doubles team winning the Grand Slam for women doubles' final. Is WTA ranked 1106 and is a Junior. This makes for a nice trophy on her mantelpiece, but not a Wikipedia article. Maybe in a few more years when she's built up a decent tennis career. Nominated for speedy twice, but contested once on the grounds of the Grand Slam win. The first time, the CSD template was removed by the article's creator. Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The Miami Herald had this small article from 2004 which features her as the primary subject. However, all other coverage about her is brief mentions from reporting scores. Comparing against WP:ATHLETE, it's not at all clear that she is competing at the highest level of her sport, as she is primarily playing junior tournaments. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-spionage[edit]

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

Article serves as little more than a dictionary entry, which is outside of our scope. I had originally WP:PROD'd the article, but another user removed the prod. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the prod should not have been removed in this case. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a neologism. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: A7. (Non-admin closure.) Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 17:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Families with Children adopted from Vietnam[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews [2]. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable organization. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - could have been deleted as a db-corp speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tagged for speedy deletion A7 RadioFan (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under A7. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Bonella[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No sources other than own website which can not be used for notability. ~~Copyright issue with http://kathrynbonella.com with possible OTRS pending.~~ Stillwaterising (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Bio page on website seems to have appropiate CC license. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia entry has been updated with several media references supporting notability. - Gamblor72 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kathryn Bonella is a notable, published author and journalist. She has close ties to the infamous Schapelle Corby and Bali Nine cases. As co-author on Corby's autobiography, information about Bonella is relevant when examining the Corby case. In addition, her role in influence within the Australian media is substantial. - Gamblor72 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) In addition, Bonella satisfies WP:CREATIVE on all points. This is evidenced by the references cited in the article. - Gamblor72 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Gamblor72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. The subject of the article does not meet the necessary criteria as described at WP:CREATIVE. There are no independent references to support the notability of Bonella. The article was created by the subject, or someone close to her. WWGB (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article needs work, but some reliable Ghits aren't hard to find. By the way, Gamblor72, you don't have to keep saying "keep". Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you. I have added more references to the article to support notability. Gamblor72 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of copyright issues, this article clearly violates a number of relevant Wikipedia policies related to misusing articles for advertising and spam. The person responsible for creating the article - no prizes for guessing who that probably is - ignores and deletes relevant comments on their talk page, showing an apparent contempt for engaging in any discussion process on these issues. Afterwriting (talk) 07:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you I am not Kathryn Bonella. I apologise for deleting the talk articles on my page - the issues they pertained to (copyright of original content) were resolved so they were deleted as no longer relevant. Gamblor72 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Bonella is not currently listed as a producer or associate producer for the American 60 Minutes program. Line-up is here. I would be interested in seeing documentation on this claim. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because she previously worked for 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) (see here), not the American version. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article updated to reflect WWGB statement. Gamblor72 (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At most she is notable for writing about Corby, twice. Suggest a small addition is made to the Corby page about the legal issues arising from publication, which are the only times that third=party sources have reported on her. Martinlc (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is a best-selling author in her own right, whose work has significantly influenced public opinion of Schapelle Corby and the topic of Australians/foreigners in prison in Indonesia. Gamblor72 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An independent reference confirming this claim would be helpful to the article. WWGB (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book sales figures are not released publicly, so I'm not sure how to reference or include this information. Gamblor72 (talk) 04:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book sales might be referenced in the form of #1 on Non-fiction sales chart as reported in A Newspaper for 12/12/10. But sales is less of an issue. If the books have been influential it should be possible to cite third-party evidence to that effect, in the form of mentions of her/ the books in news or opinion pieces.Martinlc (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I was just passing by and saw this page. Are you serious? Kathryn Bonella, a best selling author, and you want to delete the page? There must be some sort of agenda here, because it is so ridiculous. I am almost stuck for words. It is a poor reflection of Wikipedia that it is being used like this. AnotherBookReader (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— AnotherBookReader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet (see below) WWGB (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearing this yet again. Your abuse and labeling of people as sock puppets because they don't agree with you is offensive. You clearly have a mission and agenda for this.

Am I a sock puppet too? This isn't a club in which in which people are not allowed to participate unless they pass your self imposed test. It is free to edit. Your attempt to subvert democracy are clear.

I urge the Wikipedia admins to investigate these people and take action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KZb5 (talk • contribs)

Delete Unless there are reviews. If she is notable, they will be available. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gamblor72, AnotherBookReader (talk · contribs) and Jmarialee (talk · contribs) have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets of Gamblor72 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked for 3 days (the remainder of this AFD). –MuZemike 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AnotherBookReader (talk · contribs) was banned, but for what? For posting this opinion on this page! And now you strike out that opinion again simply because AnotherBookReader (talk · contribs) was banned for expressing that opinion! It is blatant censorship, driven by a clear agenda. Someone needs to investigate corruption and abuse of Wikipedia on here.

Comment Most of the references appear to be just mentioning her in passing, the only news article I'm seeing that directly covers her is here, but I haven't exhausted my search so I'm not !voting yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS PAGE Kathryn is an amazing author and should keep her wiki page. I feel she is being bullied by an independent operator who publishes her own books on the same subject. This is a biased attempt at removing Kathryn's hard work and her wiki presence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.128.20 (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.211.128.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Kathryn Bonella is a best selling author, so why there is any debate at all about her inclusion here here is beyond me. Here's a link (see No. 3 in the right hand column): http://www.booksellerandpublisher.com.au/thinkaustralian/pdf/4_THINK_07_Bestsellers.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.157.135 (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.177.157.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep I see clearly what is happening here. Anyone who sees this delete attempt and realizes how ridiculous and corrupt it is, is labelled a 'sockpuppet' and banned. Anyone who can see the real motive in deleting the page of a best selling author, and voices their opinion on it, is removed from the equation.

Why not just say outright that no-one can voice opinion unless they have a long history of editing? Why not say that casual browsers are not allowed in? That no-one is allowed to post their opinion based on them seeing something which is obviously insidious and wrong?

I guess you will ban me too. Fine, because I really don't want to be part of a your gang. This sort of Wikipedia abuse should be exposed. Wikipedia should also stop selling itself as objective, because deleting pages like this one shows that it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PassingBy5 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just how many people are you going to ban here? Good old censorship. You can vote, but only if you vote to delete. What a sham. Wikipedia is a disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PassingBy5 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— PassingBy5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I said above, sales are not really the point. If she is a well-known author whose work has influenced public debate, it should be easy to find reliable third-party sources which comment on her work or review her books. If, as seems to be the case, she is only Notable for One Event (ie her writing about Corby), she would come under WP:1E, hence delete. It is up to those who believe that she is independently notable to provide sources to demonstrate it (note that sources are required, not just statements of support). WP has guidance on what it is intended to include; not all living authors meet that test - this is not a criticism or punishment, just a fact.Martinlc (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think your reference to Schapelle Corby as Corby makes your position rather clear. A slip of the keyboard, mate, which gives the game away.

It isn't just sales. That is a straw you are clinging to. As others have pointed out, Kathryn Bonella is notable for all sorts of reasons. Her books are notable similarly.

The efforts to remove the page have nothing to do with its value, and everything to do with a pretty nasty agenda. KZb5 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— KZb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP THIS PAGE Kathryn is an amazing author and producer: Kathryn's work

http://www.orthodontist.com.au/content/transcript.jsp

http://www.aso.org.au/downloads/60_Mins_Wexler74%20pages.pdf

http://www.christophervvparnell.com/tv_interviews.html

http://www.sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com/stories/contributors/259122/60-minutes-151-25-years

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article/258851/roseanne-the-cop-and-her-lover

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article/259072/straight-talk

http://sgp1.paddington.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2000_08_13/story_215.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.128.20 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.211.128.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete You don't have to repeat yourself, and we know there are primary sources which prove that she exists, but are there any secondary sources of other people talking about her that we've been missing showing that she meets any of the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR? I've been unable to find any - one book on a bestseller list does not establish notability for the author unless people actually write about the author further, so this seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS PAGE Kathryn

Under the Sign of Schapelle: Passing through Customs

Melissa Jane Hardie University of Sydney

On a recent trip to Kingsford Smith I encountered a large advertisement for Schapelle Corby's autobiography at the entrance to Customs. This disproportionate icon reminds the passerby that the travelling body is read through a hermeneutics of suspicion; that imposture and deception are anticipated acts within this transitional precinct, and that criminal ‘identity’ is understood to exist covertly in its realm. Equally, it serves the more prosaic but curiously cognate purpose of advertising ‘airport’ literature as a form of intellectual escape, proposing the pleasure of ludic reading in the place of tedious voyage to pass the time.

My paper reads events in the story of Schapelle Corby's arrest and conviction for their roles in a number of competing discursive regimes. Within the supermodern logic of the airport facility (Auge) the nation-state finds compelling vestiges in the process of customs inspections. In the case of the Corby arrest, trial, and imprisonment a knot of concerns over national, regional, and ethnic autonomy and privilege comes to structure her defence, which I will discuss through her autobiographical "My Story" (written with Kathryn Bonella, 2006).

My paper will argue for an understanding of the relationship between the body and its objects in the transitional space of customs as a proto-psychoanalytic site of melancholic loss whose passage imposes a one-way logic of irremediable progression in place of the networked ‘flows’ that characterise hyper, post, or super-modern theories of space-time. Perhaps no contemporary space imposes a more binding relationship between bodies and their objects (passports, boogie bags) than Customs. Here, you cannot turn back time; here you are discovered. source: http://rsh.anu.edu.au/events/2008/passing/abstracts.doc.

Mirror, Mirror: Body Dysmorphic Disorder

Producer: Kathryn Bonella http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAuc2xAM7-8

Producer: Kathryn Bonella http://www.60minutes.ninemsn.com/webchats/263833/rags-to-riches-tsubi-creators-george-gorrow-and-dan-single

Breach of trust Producer: Kathryn Bonella http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/lizhayes/259360/breach-of-trust

Kiss me Kat http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/charleswooley/259322/kiss-me-kate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.128.20 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 123.211.128.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Lacks references to meet WP:BIO. The blatant sockpuppetry in this AfD should be taken into account by the closing admin. Nick-D (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand why there is an attempt to delete this page. Kathryn Bonella is obviously notable, and there should obviously be a page. So what is the real agenda here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KZb5 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— KZb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - Dictionary of Notable Australian Women : PEARCE, SUZANNAH (editors)

Story By Karthryn Bonella - (1915386) My Story : Schapelle Corby with Kathryn Bonella —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.127.226 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 124.185.127.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice one. Bang goes the rather pathetic 'not notable' argument!— Preceding unsigned comment added by KZb5 (talk • contribs)

— KZb5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm afraid I have no idea what this comment is even trying to say - is there a dictionary (what's the isbn?) with an entry about Pearce or about Corby or about Bonella or what? Could someone clear this up for me? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There does seem to be some sockpuppet issues going on and if they will looked into if needed. However, I don't see any evidence that this author has any world-wide recognition besides the unsupported claim in the article. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there seems to be an agenda, not sockpuppets. For example, it suddenly becomes world-wide recognition, rather than Australian. Give me break, for goodness sake. In any case, if you want world-wide, her book has been published world wide. It is called No More Tomorrows outside Australia. KZb5 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Multiple Map sources can be found for county roads--Topo quads, state highway map, county highway maps, etc. Editors should add these references when they know they exist instead of nominating for deletion. Mike Cline (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of county routes in Humboldt County, Iowa[edit]

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

List of non-notable roads in a mostly rural area. Looks like page creator used Iowa DOT's Humboldt County map, but did not source anything. Also fails Google search even with quotation marks removed. --Fredddie ™ 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) List also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simply existing on a map is not a valid reason for inclusion. --Fredddie ™ 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Until this list has sources to verify it, I can't support including it in the encyclopedia. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no policy reason given for deletion nomination. This list can be easily verified. There are thousands of these pages on WP, for example List of county routes in Rockland County, New York, List of county roads in Frontenac County, Ontario, County routes in California, among many others. These pages should not' be deleted on a case-by-case basis. If a list of NY county highways doesn't get deleted neither should an IA list of county highways. -Atmoz (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ... then verify the contents of the list. --Rs chen 7754 19:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that simply because there are lists of county roads in New York that this list should stay. I think those lists should be deleted as well, but I don't feel like tilting at windmills. --Fredddie ™ 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it can be verified. --Rs chen 7754 19:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is a standard county route list in an appropriate format. Any editor can verify the content by looking at a map of the area and there is no real need to delete the list. ---Dough4872 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, here is a source that verifies the county routes. ---Dough 48 72 01:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geographic features and maps have always been included in paper encyclopedias. This list provides data about man-made infrastructure in a limited geographic area. Since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there should not be a limit (or prohibition) to inclusion of geographic data such as this. For these roads to split into individual articles, each would then need to meet notability requirements. As a list, it simply provides geographic data in a written format instead of a map. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard article in a standard formate. Maps are sufficient verification for such an article. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a single map that's not cited sufficient for inclusion? --Fredddie ™ 21:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map can be added as a source. ---Dough 48 72 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty in ancient Greece[edit]

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

From a quick glance, this article may appear well referenced; 40 odd inline citations for an article around 20kb long doesn't sound too bad. However, the references do not stand up to scrutiny. There is a heavy reliance on ancient sources in the article, which gives the impression that this is an essay rather than an article in an encyclopaedia. There is a lot of original research disguised by the use of these sources as demonstrated here. In at least one example, it isn't just a misuse of the ancient sources, but of the modern ones too. Of the nine times I've searched out the sources to read what they say, every time I've found that they've been misrepresented. I do not have access to all the sources listed in the article, but given the high hit rate, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot more wrong with the article. This is even after Amadscientist (talk · contribs) culled over 20kb from the article in February. In light of this, I suggest that the article is deleted because it's a controversial subject and contrains a lot of original research, and misrepresentation of sources. The subject could be dealt with in the main pederasty article, but this appears to be a content fork, carefully disguised with citations. Nev1 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion this is a very notable subject that merits an article on its own. The current article may have problems, but they can be dealt with through the usual Wikipedia process and don't require deletion. --Lambiam 21:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and appropriately tag. Yes, the article does have problems, but nothing that cannot be fixed. Also, the article certainly is notable. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many issues with what is present. In theory, I would be ok with an article on the subject as there do seem to be sources on it, however until someone with the sources chooses to write the article, we shouldn't have one. As I have demonstrated on the talk page, the bogus OR is going to be almost inseperable from the genuine info. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to remove all the OR and leave a stub, so other people can look back in the history to find which sources can be used for a decent article, than delete the page? Olaf Davis (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so; I do not have access to all the sources and 9 out of 9 I checked, the source had been misrepresented. In the absense of a reason to assume the rest is correct, it would all have to go. Information such as bibliography for anyone who wishes to recreate the article or know more about the subject can be integrated into the main article on pederasty. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep. This is a notable topic, and AFD is not cleanup. In addition, the nominator seems unfamiliar with the topic; much of what he deleted is correct info, though not cited to secondary sources. If the nominator were familiar with the topic, s/he would have been able to recognize that some of what he's deleted is uncontroversial. Indeed, anyone with even a casual interest in this topic should have known that Socrates advocated a chaste form of the erastes--eromenos relationship. Tagging would have been better than wholesale deletion in this case. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the statement at the top of this discussion, you'll see that I do not assert that the topic is not notable – William Percy's Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece is enough to demonstrate that it is – however the article as it is now is not sustainable. As I have demonstrated in the evidence presented on the talk page, the sources were deliberately misrepresented, and this problem likely affects the whole article. If every suspect piece of information was removed, you'd be left with a one line stub, which may as well not exist as it's covered in the main article on pederasty. Hence I suggest the article should be deleted, unless you can provide sources? As you appear to be very familiar with the subject, please feel free to step up and clean out the dross and add sources; I got bored of clearing out the original research and deliberate misuse of sources after a couple of hours in which there was not a single indication that the article was salvageable. Deleting the article does not mean there will never be an article on the subject, it means that one should not be created until it is adequately sourced. That was the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical pederastic relationships (3rd nomination), an article mostly edited by the same user, who has since been banned. Nev1 (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough that a book (Carola Reinsberg: Ehe, Hetärentum und Knabenliebe im antiken Griechenland. C.H. Beck Verlag, München 1989, ISBN 3-406-33911-5) published by a well regarded publisher was written in part about the topic. Hekerui (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the issue of problems with/misrepresentation of sources means the page and issues must be fixed - not deleted. Controversy, original research and misrepresentation of sources are irrelevant for purposes of establishing whether it passes the guidelines on notability, which this article clearly does. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. Tangurena (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. Needing cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was tempted to close this one as a snow keep, but it would seem more reasonable to let it go the full time, on the unlikely chance that someone could find a valid argument for deletion. I agree that a more exact analysis oft he material should be made, perhaps more clearly associating the classical material with secondary material about them. But that an article should be improved is not reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One could easily make a case that this article should be merged with Homosexuality in ancient Greece; since pederasty is by far the best documented form of ancient Greek homosexual behavior (and might in fact be the best documented sexual behavior in general from that period), most of that article should deal with pederasty. I wouldn't be in favor of this, because there's enough information about pederasty to split it off as a sub-article, but it is an argument that could be made. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's not forget that despite this discussion's venue, AFDs often have outcomes beyond a straightforward keep or delete. As has been demonstrated, the article contained deliberate misinformation, and realistically it probably still does. Therefore it needs a thorough cleanup; the question is who will take on that task? I do not have the resources to do it properly myself, and the person who originally wrote the article is now banned. Despite several people voting, no one has put their hand up to improve the article. Do the voters here really find it satisfactory to have this article spreading half-truths? Responsibility is an unusual concept on Wikipedia, but without someone willing and able to rescue the article, it seems ridiculous to protect it. In the absence of that, presenting an article which almost certainly contains deliberate misinformation is the least preferable outcome of this discussion. We're not talking about your average crappy article – otherwise 90% of Wikipedia would be a candidate for deletion; what we have here is an article someone has written to deliberately misrepresent the sources. Leaving this lying around in the hope someone will step up will do no good; arguably, knowingly providing a platform for misinformation is doing harm. Has no one considered the possibility of turning this page into a redirect? Or merging it into the main pederasty article? So far the keep votes have been pretty simplistic in response to a complicated issue. Yes, the subject is notable, but I have not suggested that there should never be an article on this, just that until someone can create some decent material that we know is not intentionally incorrect that it should be no more than a redirect; which is a de facto deletion. Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there were propagandist motives behind much of the writing by a banned editor but this is a notable topic and redirect isn't the way to go. It does contain some very strange things - such as the section on the religious aspect of pederasty, which is very poorly referenced and almost incoherent - and there is a good argument for pruning the article back to a stub to encourage a thorough rewrite, but it shouldn't be deleted, redirected or merged. Merging it with Homosexuality in ancient Greece would be to confuse homosexuality with pederasty. Merging it with Pederasty would be to downplay the special significance of pederasty in ancient Greece. Amphitryoniades (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune extensively according to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Of course, this is AfD, not Article-Cleanup, so the pruning will have to be done at the article and its talk page. However it is useful to have context for keeping the article - it is the topic that is notable, not the content. The page is overrun with unsourced speculation and idealized interpretations and misinterpretations of ancient sources. All unsourced or questionably-sourced information should be removed, even if that leaves a very short page. Short and verified is a good start for a reboot that can become a strong article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dusti has just given this a non-admin closure. Technically, that's only supposed to happen for 'Unanimous or nearly unanimous' keep/merge/redirect results. Also, his closure came 24 hours short of the scheduled ending time. Since the debate seems to have pretty much settled down (only one comment in the last almost-four days) I'm going to leave this closed and endorse the 'no consensus' outcome. If anyone objects and would like to see the discussion reopened before midnight tonight, feel free to let me know or do so yourself. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Vidler (judoka)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, raw BLP stub with no hope of expansion. *** Crotalus *** 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to other editors: is participating (and winning bronze) in the 2002 Commonwealth Games enough to pass WP:Athlete? If so, we have a speedy keep here. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say that his bronze in the Commonwealth Games is not sufficient. Ryuichi Murata is currently being discussed at AFD and I would say his international resume is superior. I'm aware of WP:OTHER, but I'm just pointing out that one can see other editor's opinions on a similar case. Papaursa (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I just have trouble seeing how you keep someone with a single 7th place finish at a World Cup event and delete someone with 4 podium finishes (including 2 victories) in World Cup events. Papaursa (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: who are "we"? Geschichte (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended at anyone in particular. It was more of a rhetorical question/observation. Papaursa (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competing alone wouldn't have done it but Medaling, @ a commonwealth games seems good enough for me esp with decent sourcing (2 from local paper, 1 national). --Nate ^t/_c 09:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see how any of the three deletion rationales apply. "No evidence"? I don't agree. I created the page because he has placed highly in the European Championships, among others. "Raw BLP stub"? Stubs are allowed, there is no BLP problem here and I don't see the relevance of "raw". "No hope of expansion"? Surely wrong, look at everything he has participated in. Geschichte (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an athlete competing at the top level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:ATH says the Olympics or World Championships are the top level for amateurs and I saw no evidence he'd competed there. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual wording is "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." with emphasis added. It is a rather restrictive interpretation especially given the criteria for professional athletes. Anybody playing in the NFL is a professional football player and is deemed notable. They are playing at the top level of their sport with no requirement that they have played in the SuperBowl. For an amateur sport, the World Cup is the highest level of the sport with the World Championship being a single event pinnacle. In the case of Judo, the World Championships happen once every two years. -- Whpq (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's far more restrictive than the professional requirements (which I think are too easy to meet). You're implying that this case is not "usual". The World Cup events rank below the Olympics, World Championships, continental championships, and perhaps a few other individual events. You'll notice I haven't voted in the discussion. Frankly, in the interests of consistency, I'm waiting to see what happens to the aforementioned Murata AFD. Actually, given the support already shown, my vote might well be irrelevant (which is fine). I find it interesting to see the differing views on 2 judoka (although Murata also has an MMA record) who happen to be up for deletion at the same time. Papaursa (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting thing is that Vidler has placed highly at his continental championships whereas Murata has not. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close but no cigar. The Commonwealth Games, while admirable, aren't the highest level. Really a step or two below. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - medaling at the Commonwealth Games indicates a clear, objective standard of notability. matt91486 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Datsik (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable only claim to notability is appearing on some sort of online chart. Ridernyc (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing I see meets WP:MUSIC. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find anything on this guy outside of blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Kopetsky[edit]

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

A disputed speedy. The story of this victim of crime seems to be of purely localised interest and not notable to the extent that would be required; fairly clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. The article's talk page suggests that the assertion of non-notability is "heartless"; Wikipedia is not a memorial. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I had forgotten the exact reference but have now located the specific policy that governs this situation, at WP:VICTIM; I don't see anything anywhere that suggests that Ms. Kopetsky could have been the subject of a Wikipedia article before her disappearance. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Is it then not better to rename the article to "Kara Kopetsky disappearance" since the article would be about the case (which is notable) rather then a bio about the person. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Although your certainty as to the notability of the case is not universally shared, that would indeed be a more useful approach. I suggest, though, that the existing article would need a considerable amount of rewriting even if the page was moved, to make the case the focus; it might be more appropriate to select different references that focus on the case and start from scratch to demonstrate the case's notability per se. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Kara Kopetsky disappearance. Article could be fleshed out more but has been covered by CNN[3][4], FOX[5][6][7], CBS[8], America's Most Wanted [9] and numerous mentions in the Kansas City Star Erebus Morgaine (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." While we sympathise with the relatives, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news archive or notice-board. 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply here, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't think this falls under the category of announcements, sports or the like. I agree most sources are local but I think that in a case like this that is logical, and as I showed in my above comment the case has been covered by various national news agencies. The case had an in depth coverage on America's most wanted on the June 9 2007 and again on 13 March 2010. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am not even from the Midwest and I know of this case, so to say it's unknown, is quite questionable, imo. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That argument, a rather subjective one, is discussed at WP:IKNOWIT. No one is suggesting that this case is unknown; it's being suggested that it's not notable, a small but significant point. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in my opinion, not even noteworthy enough to need to consider not news. But it would certainly fall under that also. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and DGG, couldn't have put it better. ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret London[edit]

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

This is essentially an article about a Facebook group. There is some notability (if the refs are anything to go by) but nothing beyond other, more successful, FB groups that do not have their own articles. Basically I don't really see the notability here but chose AfD over speedy due to the refs. I think we'd be setting a poor precedent and have there are arguably more notable FB groups that do not warrent their own article (such as this).raseaC^{talk to me} 20:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really neutral about this one. An article about a Facebook group is a new one to me, but there appear to be legitimate sources in there (not all of them, though). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I certainly don't think deleting is really appropriate, as this isn't just a Facebook group, but also a website, which has a large community of users. Not only that, but there have been several stories in London papers about the group & site's history and success. Surely the press that Secret London has received justifies its presence on Wikipedia? Physic_sox 21.35, 18 March 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physic sox (talk • contribs)
Keep sufficient evidence for importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has received significant coverage in reliable sources. That it is a facebook group does not matter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3: Blatant hoax). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Taylor (guitarist)[edit]

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

This is odd. It all looks legit--a minor guitar player, touring musician--but on closer inspection there isn't a single reliable source to be found, and I can't even find any unreliable sources. The supposed "Profile" in the EL section might as well be about someone else; there are fewer than no hits for this supposed new album; ditto for the first album. The original creator (and nothing of substance has been added) was blocked as the sock of an indef-blocked vandal (User:Metrospex). Unverified info (BLP violation) was added here by another sock of another indef-blocked user (User:Human_Rights_Believer), and more unverified info was added by the same user here (for the record: good riddance). So, we have some unverified crap written up by a bunch of blocked people; I'm going to go with delete as hoaxy crap unverified BLP not-notable something--please pick your own acronym as you see fit. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddayaknow. More hoaxy BLP nonsense added here by another indef-blocked user (blocked recently for BLP violations/vandalism). More imaginary stuff added here by yet another indef-blocked user (one article, four indef-blocks...), information which stood until I removed it earlier today. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've long suspected that this is a hoax article. Back at the end of last year I tried to verify anything in the article, and came up with nothing. -- Zsero (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax vandalism, pure and simple. Rodhull andemu 02:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am satisfied that this is a hoax that no one cared about.--Milowent (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:HOAX. A believable hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Woerner[edit]

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

The guy's a scuba instructor. Just because he's filed to run in the primary doesn't make him notable. If he wins the primary, against Senator Inouye, then he can have an article. I also have concerns of COI editing. Woogee (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written in a non-biased tone, so I'm confused as to why you feel there may be a COI. Also, I would consider Andy Woerner to be notable the moment that he officially has been added as an official primary candidate, which he has been as you can see in the source that was listed. His notability is not his previous occupation, but his possible future one. Voters should have the most amount of accurate information about the candidates and as long as the information is unbiased and accurate, I see no reason to delete the article. SkiBoarder8 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2010 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a campaign website. And my COI concern involves USSenateHI (talk · contribs), whose User ID clearly shows a conflict of interest when it comes to the Hawaii Senate campaign. Woogee (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete- I hate to say it, but in the USA Senators are generally for life. I wish primaries were meaningful for incumbants, but rarely are. I would suggest moving it back into user space. If there is any national attention, or if you actually win the primary, then certainly you would be notable. Now in the meanwhile help with Hawaii articles would be great. In fact, "Jack's Locker" might deserve an article, but the link on this page does not seem relevant to national political office. W Nowicki (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what relevant information to United States Senate election in Hawaii, 2010. Per WP:POLITICIAN, does not merit a standalone article at this time. Ray^Talk 03:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only content that user:USSenateHI edited was incorrect dates for Senator Inouye's service in the Senate. The original writer mistakenly put that he had "held the seat since Hawaii became a State in 1959". While Senator Inouye served in the U.S. Congress starting in 1959, he did not begin the Senate until several years later as per Dan Inouye. Although I am indeed the candidate mentioned, I did not initially see the COI, as I was merely correcting a reference mistake made by another user. I now understand the potential COI of making any edits on a page about myself and am respectfully removing myself from this discussion. User:USSenateHI 22:24, 16 March 2010 (HST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by USSenateHI (talk • contribs)

Yes, a merge into that article makes sense. Especially if a reporter or other third party notes that established politicians are too scared to run, so only newcomers dare to, etc. To clarify "conflict of interest": you do not need to totally recuse yourself. COI just means being even more careful to have a neutral point of view. Edits that correct facts are probably better than having incorrect info in the article, but should be cited to third party sources. If the creator of the article had no connection whatsoever to the campaign, then we would not have COI grounds to delete, but it still would need to pass the notability test for stand-alone article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character shield[edit]

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

Unreferenced original research WP:SYNTH since 2006(!) - Altenmann >t 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a similar OR is discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot immunity. Xuz (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plot device where any sourcable information might be included. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete I originated the page and contributed most of the first three paragraphs. Since then it's grown into a messy list of examples. I agree that it's not encyclopedic, and TV Tropes is really a more appropriate wiki. --Elwood00 ^{T | C} 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Elwood00, as the creator of the page, do you know if any reliable sourcing exists for this term? If not, there is no alternative but to delete it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Avoid Neoligisms -- the term is unsupported by any references, let alone reliable sources. The only usage of this phrase that I found in google searches [10], [11] postdate and mirror this 2005 Wikipedia article. There is nothing in book searches. There is no reason to redirect a term whose only sourcing is created by the page itself. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if anyone is prepared to rewrite it with sources. The term may not be ideal, but the concept is real enough & hardly limited to Start Trek. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a simplistic speculative original research. Xuz (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. weak delete is still delete... maybe better to start from beginning some time later if it shows necessary. Tone 21:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobus P. van der Weele[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. No claims to notability. A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator. Woogee (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citability, per GoogleScholar[12] is rather modest. Nothing else in the record indicates passing WP:PROF. Also, the lede paragraph appears to be a verbatim copy of [13], raising possible copyvio issues. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. - I originally proded the article as there was nothing to indicate it met WP:ACADEMIC. noq (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searching GS for "J. P. van der Weele" (as used in his publications), as did Nsk92, I find that GS cites are all over the place but I get cites of 40, 40, 22, 19, 18, 17 with h index about 11. There might be some double counting. Could somebody do a search on WoS, which is not accessible to me at present? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Article makes no claim of notability for this scholar; how did he advance human knowledge? Abductive (reasoning) 04:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've reworded to avoid the copyvio, but the article badly needs proper references. On GS, if I filter out papers not by him, I get citations 40, 22, 19, 18, 17, 11, 7, for a h-index of 7, which is rather borderline. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation record is not so good then. Quality of article is poor too. 07:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

Indeed. I didn't make the article any better, I just made it legal. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Fails WP:PROF. I have to agree with the above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted a while ago. –xeno^talk 18:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Themusicase.com[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable website. I have not been able to find any coverage. Haakon (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy del WP:CSD G11. - Altenmann >t 19:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete short, poorly-written advertisement. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, per above. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neither of the keep !votes address the concerns about notability raised by the oppostion. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Amaranthine Order[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:Org. No mention of this org by reliable sources independent of the subject. Completely sourced to SPS. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book used a source is unknown to Worldcat. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: My above bolded "Comment" was changed to "Keep" by User:Orthorhombic,[14] so it would be a good idea to check the page history for any other such behaviour before evaluating consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I wrote most of this article myself, and it sounds like I am going to have to get this research published in a scholarly journal and then reference myself. I own two malin-grey publications on the Order, but will clearly have to work to track down others. The Order probably had about a thousand members at its peak (about the same as a secondary school, which I suppose would be entitled to a Wikipedia article regardless of its notability), and is certainly not as well-known as the Order of the Eastern Star, from which I believe it was a spin-off. If the community wants to delete it then the community will have its way no doubt, and I guess I will be able to recycle the research and get thanks and payment for the work to boot! :) (Needless to say, it is in the nature of secret societies that they will attempt to keep their very existence and their activities secret.) Orthorhombic, 14:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question... Orthorhombic, are you saying that most of this article is based on your own research into the organization? If this is indeed the case then, yes, you should take the article and publish it elsewhere... and we should add WP:NOR to the list of problems. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)*[reply]

Blueboar: All of Wikipedia is either plagiarism or original research. Which would you prefer in the case of this article? Orthorhombic, 21:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and as such it summarizes what is said in secondary sources. You should probably check out Wikiversity... it is a sister project that welcomes original research. Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organisation seems notable to me IJA (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to expand?... what makes it seem notable to you? More importantly can we establish that notability through reference to reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as is required by our notability guidelines. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:CLUB Codf1977 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel John Ayers[edit]

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

Recommend article be deleted. Article appears to be a self-promotion piece, apparently originally self-submitted and edited by the same article subject (User:Dlayersjr and User:Danja), with links to other Wikipedia articles and external links to personal curriculum vitae, blog site and YouTube video submitted by the same person (see User:Edward/Possible_self_edits). Article does not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia biographies of living persons (including typical qualifications for inclusion in Wikip category list of computer specialists), nor were the unreferenced publications found to have third-party references to notability. Varientx (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

del unreferenced bio. - Altenmann >t 19:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, although if we're being really kind maybe a redirect to Nocturnal Emissions would be okay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Nocturnal Emissions. Not notable, it's cheap, and let's be kind. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laique Rehman[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Org Maker[edit]

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

non notable software. Unreferenced. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any coverage of this software package in reliable sources. –Grondemar 12:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hallman[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC because it fails WP:V. No secondary sources to be found through Google or any other search (beyond passing mentions). Jubilee♫clipman 18:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Jubilee♫clipman 19:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Concerning verifiable third-party sources, what about http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/24/arts/music/24dema.html?_r=1, cited in a footnote to the article? It may not be much, but it is something more than nothing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mention, IMO. It is something, though, I grant you! Updated my nomination accordingly. I have also been trying to find info on the "Darius Milhaud Awards" but to no avail, so far. Any help there? Seems to be given out by the Darius Milhaud Society but I can't find much about them on the net either Update: see pg 81 of this. However, I still can't verify that Hallman actually received that award: all the claims to that effect (so far found) are either on his own website, on other closely related sites or on obvious non-RSs such as social networking sites, wikis, etc. Further update: I added another ref but I am still not convinced... that's as far as I can go! --Jubilee♫clipman 20:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the Society itself, see: <http://watchdog.net/ein/341402068/darius-milhaud-society> and <http://www.socialcurrent.org/nonprofit/341402068/Darius_Milhaud_Society>. Their Newsletter is listed here: <http://www.magazine-subscription-search.com/prd155378.php>. I can't find a list of winners, either, but that is not too surprising for an award given to undergraduates within an institution (in this case, students at the Cleveland Institute of Music). The first award was in 1985, and the recipient was David Wolfson: <http://www.voxnovus.com/composer/David_Wolfson.htm> (who does not have a Wikipedia article—I've checked). I have a handful of that sort of composition award myself. As they used to say, that and twenty-five cents will get you a cup of coffee. Today it's more like $2.50, so I reckon those awards must be worth even less today.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The award is, essentially, "expressly for newcomers", then? If so, it also fails WP:COMPOSER... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I can tell, it is "expressly for students", though not necessarily for "newcomers". In either case, this award by itself would not make a case for notability, no. A single review in the New York Times is a bit marginal, as well. It would help if there were two or three others, even in less well-known publications, to lend some support to the idea of being "frequently covered in publications".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two articles/profiles: philly2philly - a local Philadelphia news website, AvianMusic - A New York City-based contemporary music ensemble dedicated to the music of living American composers. I'm unsure if the material is really independent and reliable. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of the Drexel University site shows no Joseph Hallman, and he is not listed among the faculty (there is no degree program in music - only a minor in music is offered). Incidentally, I listened to his string quartet and looked at the score of his quintet, and he really is a fine composer. Unfortunately, that alone does not qualify him to be in Wikipedia. Let's give him another couple of years to make a name for himself. Joe, keep slugging away. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly since the article makes claims of notability, but if the claims can't be reliably verified I don't think we can justify keeping the article. --Deskford (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. Tone 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Russell Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for party nomination for election to U.S. Senate seat. Does not appear to have any significant coverage nor does candidate appear to have held political office previously; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Frank | talk 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010, as required by the "general rule" in WP:POLITICIAN for candidates.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010, per Mkativerata. Unlikely to win, per own admission. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person has "pulled out of this race" according to a local news paper and one other candidate. If he doesn't file by March 12, 2010, I would agree with deletion. If he does, I would keep it at least until May 8, 2010. --Archf 1 (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. Tone 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Lee[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for party nomination for election to U.S. Senate seat. Does not appear to have any significant coverage nor does candidate appear to have held political office previously; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Frank | talk 18:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010 as required by the "general rule" in WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" Mr. Lee is not a notable figure and has never held public office before. Prior to becoming a candidate he has never been mentioned in a news article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.154.73 (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. Tone 21:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherilyn Eagar[edit]

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

Non-notable candidate for party nomination for election to U.S. Senate seat. Does not appear to have any significant coverage nor does candidate appear to have held political office previously; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Frank | talk 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010 as required by the "general rule" in WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'm inclined to agree that even though Eager doesn't warrant an article (yet—she would if she won office or garnered significant news coverage beyond just her candidacy), she's a likely search term, so having this be a link to the senate race article, as Mkativerata suggested, is the best course for now. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. This race, Utah 2010 Senate race, has been listed as a top 10 inter-party races in the US by more than one group. Eagar is the only woman in the race. Other candidates for this same race are listed in Wikipedia. Eagar has been listed in the top 3 challengers to Bob Bennett by Club for Growth, Redstate.com, Independence Caucus, and received the endorsement of the Utah Republican Assembly, Glenn Kimber of the Thomas Jefferson Center, and Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the National Eagle Forum and first lady of the conservative movement, among others. IF after May 8, 2010 she doesn't make it out of the Utah GOP Convention, deleting this entry or changing it from a politician might make sense. If she does, it would make national if not international news. While it is true that we have editors for this article using a biased article as reference for what I believe to be inaccurate sections, I believe the article as a whole is appropriate. She is a former teacher featured in Sean Hannity’s book Let Freedom Ring for successfully calling into question the American Red Cross’ “religious and political neutrality” policy. She has been active in conservative causes for 30 years. --Archf 1 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I recommend keeping Tim Bridgewater, Cherilyn Eagar, and Michael S. Lee until May 8, 2010 and then re-evaluating them at that time. --Archf 1 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOTTEMP. Frank | talk 17:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(indented by Frank, as this is a response to previous comment) One of the reasons I recommend keeping these 3 is that they are in a notable and nationally covered US Senate Race. IF they were not in the race, they might not meet the requirements. Redstate.com and Club for Growth, along with the Tea Party movement make this worth including. She has made news such as [15] [16] --Archf 1 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And can you find something in either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN that supports the assertion that being "in a notable and nationally covered US Senate race" confers notability on an individual? Keep in mind, this is a primary candidate; she's never held elective office before. Frank | talk 17:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FlyTeam[edit]

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

Prod contested without explanation. Article has been tagged as hoax and I can find no evidence that this "unofficial and unbinding airline alliance" exists. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the creator has been blocked indef for adding hoaxes to airlines. HkCaGu (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant hoax -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax from user now blocked for hoaxing. I dunno if I'd go so far as to call it "blatant", but the problem is clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. I don't know if it's a hoax, though. The only FlyTeam I could find was the name of a professional flying school, but the home page is blank. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Wrestling Show[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. If this is deleted, the following dependent pages should also be deleted:

AWS Heavyweight Championship
AWS Lightweight Championship
AWS Tag Team Championship
AWS Women's Championship

Thanks. Nikki♥311 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 17:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you are going to put these up for deletion, then you might as well put all other such articles that lack significant coverage in third party sources up for deletion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nikki♥311 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes. Yes, we should. — Gwalla | Talk 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Body is unsourced as are the alumni - thereby failing WP:N. Massively fails WP:CORP. Get Dumb 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time Cube[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fringe website doesn't seem to have received sufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources to establish sufficient notability per WP:WEB. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per arguments presented in the gazillion previous nominations. Both the website and the theory(?) has received considerable attention. For instance, there's a peer-reviewed article by Bei Dawei, and it has been the topic of public panel discussions at MIT and Georgia Tech. Serious disgrace that an article can be nominated again and again, apparently for the same reason. The AfD process is not perfect, hence a miscarriage of justice is bound to happen if such frivolous repeated nominations are allowed. Woseph (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - While the site is finge, it's notable both in the degree of its "fringeness" and the fact that this has allowed it to become quite possibly the archetypal fringe site on the Internet. Both the article and the site it describes have become the go-to references of what fringe sites so often look like. – Clockwork Soul 18:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A time must come for closure, and no new arguments are presented, nor is there any credible claim that consensus might have changed. This has been repetitiously renominated since 2004 at least, always with the result that the page is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notability firmly established. Repeated nominations will not change this, and there is no other pressing reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is reasonably notable if you search on "timecube.com" to avoid other things with similar names. A Google Books search shows that it is in the 2001 and 2003 editions of The rough guide to the Internet‎. It also gets a footnote mention in an academic paper (as an example of sources not to use as references if you value your credibility)[17] and a smattering of news coverage in the Google News archive. Its not a huge amount but I think it is enough to keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of very few goofy internet memes which genuinely and truly has significant reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. See also WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ODD, and WP:CCC: longstanding consensus is that this is a notable freaky freaking freak. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A fringe theory, certainly-- very fringe; I'm not sure if anyone other than Gene Ray even "understands" it. But a famous (or notorious) fringe theory. As long as Wikipedia considers any aspect of internet culture or internet memes to be within project scope, Time Cube remains on in the select top of the short list from benifit of its long term legs over about a decade and a half. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Castle Keep, for reasons already given above. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Castle keep? As in "stronger than strong"? I've never seen this before :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You got it. I'm so punny, har har! Kittensandrainbows (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and also close early per WP:SNOW --ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable kook idea, several citations in mainstream peer-reviewed publications as an example of the genre. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Petition to rename this proposal "Time Cube (cubic nomination)" in honour of our hero, Dr Ray. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 3 other AfDs for this article, all which resulted in keep. I just compared the current version to what it was when deletion was proposed last time and not much seems different. It seems disrespectful to ignore those previous discussions unless something has changed significantly since then, which doesn't seem to be the case with this one. Svenna (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Together with the unanimous "keeps" on this one, I support any admin closing this as a speedy keep as already proposed multiple times. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a general proposition, I am reluctant to delete articles for lack of NPOV, as this is something that usually can be addressed by editing. In this case, however, the consensus of the established editors is that the article is so fundamentally flawed as to require a rewrite, and as such deletion is appropriate. There is a substantial agreement that the topic is notable, and there is no prejudice to the creation of an appropriately neutral article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Oxfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays

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

Inherent violation of WP:NPOV: extreme undue weight given to a fringe theory. The "Oxfordian" theory described here is only taken seriously by people operating outside of their field; within actual academic Shakespearean studies, it is universally dismissed. Having an article on the minute aspects of a fringe theory inherently gives it more weight and legitimacy than it deserves. *** Crotalus *** 17:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe you are mistaken. Saying the topic is "universally dismissed" is not accurate as several universities now offer degree courses in Shakespeare Authorship studies, and approximately 300 academics, the largest number of them in English literature, have signed this petition [18] to express their doubt about the traditional attribution. Finally, a multi-million dollar "Shakespeare Authorship Research Centre" has just opened at Concordia University (Portland, Oregon). I would hope you might refactor your comment about academia universally dismissing the subject. Thank you. Smatprt (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are already two articles about this: Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Shakespeare authorship question. Absolutely no need for a third.

Keep. Legitimate split from a lengthy article. Now, did *** Crotalus *** really initiate this Afd ... or was it somebody else? Clarityfiend (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You really read thru all these comments. Impressive. Smatprt (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend; not even worth a redirect. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article was split from its parent article Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship due to length, as per wp:SPLITTING. It is not at all the same as Shakespeare authorship question, which merely gives an overview of the issue.

Keep As I understand it, the purpose of wikipedia is to provide the kind of forum that can't be found anywhere else, one where independent scholars can have their say. The close connection between Oxford's biography and the plots of the plays is solid evidence for his authorship, or that of someone who found his life fascinating. No one would object if those promoting the Stratford biography wished to provide a similar list. Methinx (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Methinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment You are mistaken. Please look at WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The key policy that applies here is WP:WEIGHT. The article gives excessive weight to a marginal position and fails to give due weight to criticism of the claims or to contrary evidence.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This deletion discussion is duplicating a merge discussion here [[19]]. Administrators are involved and Jimbo Wales even weighed in [[20]]. This article and several others are now being addressed so any deletion would be premature and against the consensus of the previous discussion. Smatprt (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smaprt is correct that there are not "already two articles on this." The Oxfordians can hardly be dismissed on the one hand as "fringe theorists" and at the same time condemned for having generated a significant body of commentary on the plays which illustrates the strengths of their case. As remarked, "Crotalus horridus" vastly overstates the case for the closed minds of orthodox academicians, an increasing number of whom are open and curious to the debate. Crotalus also states, quite incorrectly, that the theory is "only taken seriously by people operating outside of their field." This merely shows that he is not well informed on the progress of the debate (I will gladly cite particulars upon request).--BenJonson (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The argument that Oxfordians generate a "significant" or at least a large body of writings hardly ddresses whether something is WP:FRINGE. Anyone wandering around the "alternative" section of a bookshop would find plenty of material on astrology, palmistry and other fringe material. Indeed talking the following quote from Michael Dobson's article on the authorship question in The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, makes it clear that the "anti-Stratfordians" are nothing if not prolific:

Most observers, however, have been more impressed by the anti-Stratfordians' dogged immunity to documentary evidence, not only that which confirms that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, but that which establishes that several of the alternative candidates were long dead before he had finished doing so. ‘One thought perhaps offers a crumb of redeeming comfort,’ observed the controversy's most thorough historian, Samuel Schoenbaum, ‘the energy absorbed by the mania might otherwise have gone into politics.’

--Peter cohen (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you have posted this paragraph on several different forums now. It states someone's opinion, and not one fact. What is the point?Smatprt (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:RS, and as a mainstream Shakespearean reference book one regarded as high quality per policy, which provides evidence that the theory advanced in the article up for deletion is WP:FRINGE and this should eb dealt with per that policy which certainly does not support the one-sided and therefore WP:UNDUE presentation of the fringe point of view with the article written in such a biased way that Shakespeare is not even called Shakesepeare.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smatprt is right that this discussion duplicates another discussion. On the other hand "BenJohnson"'s reference to "the closed minds of orthodox academicians" makes it clear that we are dealing here with the advocates of a fringe theory who put down the rejection of their viewpoint by the vast majority of Shakespearian academia to "closed minds" rather than to the lack of evidence for their position. The New York Times survey of American Shakespeare academics contained results such as the following:

18. Which of the following best describes your opinion of the Shakespeare authorship question?

2% Has profound implications for the field

3 An exciting opportunity for scholarship

61 A theory without convincing evidence

32 A waste of time and classroom distraction

2 No opinion

(cont.) This demonstrates that the general position that Shakespeare did not write his own plays is considered of any interest by a tiny fringe of those working in the field with an order of magnitude more regarding it as a waste of time as consider it has profound implications for the field. Oxfordian theory is just one of several fringelets that make up the authorship fringe as a whole. The article under issue here is not written in a manner that acknowledges how marginal its subject is within the field of Shakespeare scholarship but rather contains unremitting propaganda in favour of the fringe viewpoint that is its subject.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, I see you have posted this here, as well. With all due respect, I think you may be misinterpreting the survey and "cherry-picking" one question in particular, then supplying your own interpretation. Yes, 32% consider it a waste of time (thus dismissing the issue). But that is not even close to a majority and completely negates the claim that a majority of scholars dismiss the entire subject. 61% consider it a theory without convincing evidence. That is certainly not "dismissing" the issue. Far from it. It means that 61% have actually considered the theory, yet are unconvinced, which makes absolute sense. Of course they do not find it convincing - if they did, then the authorship issue would be the accepted theory. But they certainly don't dismiss it, nor call it a waste of time. Why you keep posting this across forums is beyond me. Smatprt (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the percentages quoted in this and other questions, the respondents were not allowed to tick more than one box, and I believe you are reading more meaning into it that is warranted. The same with the 72% who mention it in their classroom that Schoenbaum earlier quoted as some kind of positive datum. With 61% and 32% effectively dismissing the idea (why you think teachers would spend class time on a theory for which they say there is no convincing evidence, I won't even hazard to guess), I think it highly doubtful that any meaningful give-and-take was indulged in by the 72%. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

responseTom - you keep doing that: "61 and 32 effectively dismissing" - Only 32% dismissed the issue, calling it "a waste of time and classroom distraction." They ticked the right box and said to themselves, "Damn right a waste of time. It's crap!" But a full 61% said that it was "a theory without convincing evidence". That is so very different than "dismissing" the subject completely out of hand. Smatprt (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and Madame Molotava will file a lawsuit for mind reading without a license. I can do the same trick, and my glimpse into the minds of all those who answered "a theory without no convincing evidence" (all 167 of them) tells me that they also thought it was a waste of time, but were only allowed to tick one box. Tom Reedy (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't the NY Times more polling teachers than polling researchers? (I did not see the Times ask, When was the last time you contributed to the body of Shakespearean research?) And I think I recall a Times poll where they asked wood cutters what they thought about coal in the home, and later, a poll of whalemen on what they thought of Edwin Drake's prospects in the lamp oil industry. It may not be a fringe theory that William of Stratford was history's quickest study, but it should be no less fringy to observe that parallels to Oxford's life story figure in more Shakespearean plots than would normally be expected. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I would be equally receptive to a similar page on play parallels in William of Stratford's life or Marlowe's or Neville's. Elizabeth's, too--I'm game. Fotoguzzi (talk)

Keep The reasons given above to keep it make perfect sense for this page. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wysiwyget (talk • contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Wysiwyget (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment A number of the !votes seem to be coming from editors with negligible recent contribution history who seem to have activated juhst to take part in the various threads and discussions related to this content dispute.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION Is this discussion closed? The page under discussion indicates that it is, but I see no resolution. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cont.) It appears I"m confused; it's the merge proposal that was closed (but my confusion still remains). Tom Reedy (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Deletion will result in a huge growth of the Oxfordian theory article, which then will be split into several pages, one of which will closely resemble this page. Seems like a waste of time. The attention that the bard authorship question gets in real life (e.g. supposedly > 5000 published books in favor of someone else alone) obviously warrants a few pages in wikipedia. Rather than deleting pages, could it perhaps be more constructive to have an "in defense of Shakespeare of Stratford" page under the bardauthorship umbrella? Afasmit (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A decision has been made to merge the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship article with the Shakespeare authorship question article, so your reasoning is invalid. An article defending Shakespeare's claim such as you suggest would allow the fringe theory to frame the argument, a tactic that is often used by authorship theory believers, but which is not conceded by any Shakespearean professional. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Please note that the initial decision to "merge" has been clarified by the closer:

"My point is do not worry about which articles will be merged yet. Work on the sandbox and then see where content forking may be required. Merging is a stand-in idea for getting the various sticks-in-the-mud unstuck (and that applies to all sides who are engaging far too much in arguing with each other and not nearly enough with actually editing)." - and - "to clarify: this is not to say that at the end of the day there will be only one article. This is only to say that we should proceed from the ideals ofWikipedia:Summary style and move forward."

This was also clarified by user:4meter4 with "In looking at ScienceApologist's further explanation of his ruling above (see my conversation) I don't think he has actually ruled in favor of either party of this debate. He's merely suspended judgement and directed everyone to create the sort of changes that must to be made. He hasn't made a ruling on any mergers or article deletions at all...yet. It's a "let's see the alternative first before deciding" approach. I think this is very smart and exactly what needs to be done in this contentious climate. This is a good opportunity for both sides to work constructively together." I am restating these as I want to make sure we are all acknowledging the current situation. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is nothing more than specious "evidence" manufactured because there is not one iota of real evidence that Oxford wrote Shakespeare. These types of "parallels" have been shown to be just as valid for other alternative candidates of the nobility, including King James and the 6th Earl of Derby. Given the number of characters and situations in Shakespeare's plays, and the fact that a good percentage of all plays of the time concerned the doings of the nobility, it's not that hard to "match" incidents and character traits to members of the nobility. Oxfordians appreciate very much the use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool for their theory. Tom Reedy (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed! It is difficult to tell who is being referred to regarding the Gads Hill massacre of 20 May, in the fourteenth year of the reign. I think James and Derby dressed up as a pantomime horse for their part of the crime. Why was William of Stratford so obsessed with Derby? I realize that some have a zeal to purify the chaste wikipedia of moon-hoaxers, truthers, and ufologists, but I note that this article is two or three links removed from the Shakespeare article. The authorship controversy is bullet 7.1 in the Shakespeare article, so I'm thinking that, figuratively, junior will have to stand on the back of the sofa to reach the bookshelf containing the dread information. And isn't it better that junior be introduced to the shameful subject in a safe, controlled wiki-atmosphere rather than learn about it from his slutty cousin, Webouina? Fotoguzzi (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is a split-off side article of the GA-nominated and Version 0.7-nominated Oxfordian theory article, which was too big per Wikipedia guidelines and needed to be split. Nor is the subject matter a fringe theory as defined by Wikipedia. Alternative viewpoint yes; fringe theory by no means. If anything, the article is merely new and unfinished -- there are scholar-noted Oxfordian parallels with every single Shakespeare play; these simply have not all been added yet to the new article. Article could use substantial updating and expansion. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork, that presents all of this as it it were undoubted. A NPOV presentation would require a fairly complete rewriting, giving the customary analysis for each point, not just the very few cases were an orthodox scholar happens to have said something that might be twisting into support the Oxfordian meaning. In this case, I think it would be best done by starting over, for the premise of the article is beyond redemption. (as a start, I would separate the materials dealing with the parallels between Oxford's life & family history and the plays from the material that it is asserted Oxford would have known, but not Shakespeare. The presence of the material that can arguably be seen to be about Oxford is not evidence that he wrote the plays personally; whereas material that Shakespeare could not have known might be evidence, if one ignored the existence of indirect knowledge, and asserted Oxford wrote the works of all other contemporary dramatists also. I think it would be a mistake not to give the Oxfordian theory a separate article, but it must not be an article written so blatantly by a true believer. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per DGG. I'd reserved my opinion since I am known as a 'hostile' party, but now defer to DGG's considerable experience and known neutrality. Why wikipedians insist on defending an article which is rife with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV infractions, consisting of a sheet of assertions from WP:FRINGE material lacking any contextualization in mainstream scholarship is unexplained. Several such articles are being written, and added, which have no other function that to enliven the links on the main SAD page with more sectarian disinformation.Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worrying amounts of apparent original research and unverified material. Inherently POV, which is magnified by the tone and content of the article.--Slp1 (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As good a place as any to begin reorganizing this walled garden. A new draft is being made with input from a wide range of editors that will be appropriately split if necessary. I am having a very hard time imagining that an article like this will be found in Wikipedia's future, and I see no particular reason that any of the content should be preserved in a non-deleting merge. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a legitimate split from a long article. The Oxfordian theory is one of the most, if not the most, accepted fringe theory on the Shakespearean authorship question, so this is a legitimate split article. North North-West (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the most accepted fringe theory"???? Tom Reedy (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And add a "Stratfordian theory: Parallels with Shakespeare's plays" if it is necessary. The mainstream theory has thousands of books and articles, but two articles (or really one article split in two) for Oxford is too many? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.79.148 (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of articles on Wikipedia? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Stratfordian point of view is based simply on tradition that began with misattribution of the works of Shakespeare. Search for historical records to back Stratfordianism finds a near vacuum. What one does find is the record of a man totally ill-suited to be the Bard: little if any education, commonplace experience, no record of writing, and, in fact, no proof even of literacy. So one is driven to look for the true author as countless scholars, writers, dramatists, and simply fact-driven people have now done. The favored solution is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford as the author. With a score of books presenting the case for de Vere now published, the Oxfordian view is now rapidly headed for the accepted view. Removing an Oxfordian article would be a blemish on Wikiperdia's objectivity, judgement, and fairness that could haunt it for years. KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardspear (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Stratfordian position is based on unfounded and unsubstantiated facts stemming completely from conjecture and is the continuation of systematic poor analysis that has been passed off as scholarship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.150.219 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ...for now until the text of the Shakespeare Authorship Question page is settled. A premature deletion of this page would look like a flanking attack by those opposed to anything on Wikipedia about the issue, which is not the case. The time and energies of all should be devoted first to the main SAQ page. Wysiwyget (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breastberry[edit]

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

Word coined by a poet without a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:NEO. Delete, speedy if possible. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. As usual I will add that there needs to be a speedy category for blatantly non-notable neologisms. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:NEO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWy delete there isn't a chance in hell this will be kept. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism that does not appear to be in use anywhere. -- Whpq (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. His antics have attracted enough media attentio. to meet the bar on WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Hughes[edit]

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

Article about a "professional fan". Suspect notability. Possible COI. No reliable sources, only external links to blogs ccwaters (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really have my doubts about this one, but even if 100% true as written not notable in the slightest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources: MSNBC, Yahoo, Asylum, Gawker/Defamer. As for the COI, I created the article after seeing a story, not Hughes. I have no connection to him. But I does appear he edited the article himself and added promotional stuff, but all that has been removed. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to say it (I certainly hope he never attends any games I am at) but the guy does appear to be uniquely notable. The Today Show appearance was what convinced me. I have added that link to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Saw him interviewed numerous times on CTV. Which would pass significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Universe (computer game)[edit]

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

I can find no significant third-party references save those derived from the Wikipedia article. No such references appear in the article itself, and a majority of the article is original research, including the quote, which Garth Bigelow himself directly wrote into the article. An Editor With a Self-Referential Name (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources happen to show up. I couldn't find any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sources that can establish notability. On a side note, I find it odd that the nom found AFD on edit #3: [21]. –MuZemike 00:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010. There's definitely a consensus that Bridgewater does not deserve a dedicated article at present. Those arguing the opposite have not addressed the fact that the provided sources are only minor coverage, or have argued that notability is inherited from the election. Given that, no-one has explicitly argued that we shouldn't have a redirect instead of a redlink. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the primary. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Bridgewater[edit]

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

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

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

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

Declined speedy on the basis of "election" but such election was to party posts, not public office. Subsequent WP:PROD removed because of "lots of media mentions, as notable as any of Bennett's other primary challengers" - which is the very definition of a non-notable political candidate. If he wins the primary and is a party candidate for the office...that will be a different story. Frank | talk 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may want to AfD Cherilyn Eagar, Michael S. Lee, and James Russell Williams as well. They all seem to be in the same boat in this race. -LtNOWIS (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One at a time... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I have a feeling that the candidate with the most money to spend will win, but until he does, or garners more direct and significant independent coverage (from WP:V & WP:RS), I say return it to its former place. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any candidate for a Senate seat is a notable public figure worthy of a wiki page. Furthermore, Cherilyn Eagar and Mike Lee, the other candidate in this race against the incumbent, have wiki pages which have not been tagged or deleted.Aworthin (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the Wikipedia policy which supports this? WP:POLITICIAN seems to contradict your interpretation of what is "worthy" of a Wikipedia page. Frank | talk 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgewater meets the primary notability criterion: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Please see the following links for mentions of Bridgewater in the media: http://www.standard.net/topics/elections/2010/03/16/candidates-begin-filing-election, http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/More-Republicans-file-to-challenge-Bennett/KM51mSKj-EODvG1mKrDmeQ.cspx, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/86883-8-primaries-where-supporting-the-bailout-could-make-a-difference, http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14479334, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700013181/Challengers-consensus-Dump-Sen-Bennett.html, http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/87171002.html, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700015447/Meet-US-Senate-candidates-at-2-Salt-Lake-Community-College-events.html, http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/85511542.html, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011551/Bennett-4-challengers-to-attend-Provo-GOP-event.html, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/84745-club-hits-bennett-with-more-ads. If Bridgewater's page gets deleted, the pages "Mike Lee" and "Cherilyn Eagar" should also be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aworthin (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) Aworthin (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those links is any more than a mention that he exists and is running for office? And, regarding the other candidates, please see WP:OSE and/or nominate any other articles if you feel they don't meet guidelines and can demonstrate that in an AFD discussion such as this one. Frank | talk 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass politician guidelines. Has received lots of mentions in the media but no significant coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines. -- Big Dom 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in Utah, 2010, as the "general rule" in WP:POLITICIAN requires for candidates. If this article is kept, we are faced with the indefinite retention of a thinly sourced and spammy article about a non-notable one-time primary candidate. A redirect enables content to be preserved in case he wins, and a viable search term to the election page where relevant succinct content about the candidate can be included. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mkativerata. Ray^Talk 03:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""keep"" Bridgewater served as the education advisor to the State of Utah, was elected as a county party chairman, was a co-founder of a public charter school in Utah, a member of the points of light foundation, has been quoted numerous times in news articles as a public figure and as a candidate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7713931/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june05/nclb_4-14.html http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/55382 http://amsam.org/2005/05/utah-gov-defies-no-child-left-behind.html http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&la... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.154.73 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This primary (and this candidate) has been recognized in the national news media. The Washington Post is calling it one of the top 10 primaries of the year. While a normal primary might not deserve the same recognition, one of such prominence does. See eg, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/the-line/friday-line-primary-colors-1.html and http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/29/2188866.aspx 161.119.42.111 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This information is valuable for Utahns on all four of the GOP challengers to Senator Bob Bennett, as additional information on the challengers besides their websites. This is a major National Primary due to Senator Bennett's seniority, second in importance only to Senator McCain's Primary. Utah Caucuses are held next week, March 23rd, and a Convention in May to select the GOP candidate, or the two for a Primary runoff. Tim Bridgewater is notable from a Utah Business, Industry, and Economic viewpoint. [22] --Bruce J. St.Dennis 20:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I recommend keeping Tim Bridgewater, Cherilyn Eagar, and Michael S. Lee until May 8, 2010 and then re-evaluating them at that time. --Archf 1 (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whichever one actually gets the nomination should have an article. The article can be reinstated at that time by any admin--there's no need to keep it here undeleted just in case. I'm in favor of giving presumptive notability for major party candidates for national legislatures, but extending this as far as those merely running for the primary is , in my opinion, a little ridiculous. There is no possible encyclopedic interest. . I'm a regular supporter of wide coverage of political candidates, as much so as any regular WPedian, and this is way beyond anything I would consider. In view of the keep supports, the nature of this article appears to be plitical advertising, and it should be considered for a G11 speedy as such DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daimonin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real assertion of notability outside the project's existence, no significant coverage from independent third party reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to have acquired any reliable sources since its previous deletion in 2007, just the same old entries on WP:RS-failing anyone-can-submit-an-entry directory sites. If the games press haven't reviewed or written about it since 2007, it still doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no improvement since the previous AfD. References: Wikipedia can't cite Wikipeia as a source. None of the remaining sources are at all reliable. External links: The "shotgun" approach to indiscriminate linking, I see. Despite purporting to be reviews, these are no such thing, being merely directory entries on sites we would not link to anyway. These are all unnacceptable WP:SPSs. Marasmusine (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per the above. Should have been speedy deleted per G4. –MuZemike 00:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium therapy[edit]

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

Lots of unsupported claims for the benefits of fish keeping. The article is full of weasel words with no references. I have brought it to deletion debate as I am not sure if it includes anything worth savings. Malcolma (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Agree that's it's in bad shape. I found a couple of references with quick google search. I'll see if I can find some more and do some editing to shape it up. Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The benefits have been well studied and reported. I have added a citation but AFD is not cleanup. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has some sources. That should be enough to keep it. Problematic unsourced statements can just be removed. Dew Kane (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite It is a mess, but the references are fine. Warrah (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look I've done some major edits and added some sources. Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Alliance[edit]

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

The subject lacks notability. All of the "references" are to a small handful of libertarian website/blogs of similar ilk. The "papers" are home-spun and the "journals" are not peer reviewed. A google search of the name returns only this wikipedia article and links to the same libertarian blogs. There is no indication that the group has been mentioned in any reliable media sources. AlexaxelA (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There a 7 Google news results and 68,000 Google search hits. As stated above, they are all to blogs or libertarian websites. If one searches the google news archives, however, there are some results from reliable sources. The LA has generated content in the Birmingham Post and BBC News. Note that some of the news is about a "[group here]-libertarian alliance", not specifically about this organization. Their coverage seems to be in passing: all the attention they garner is around two sentences, along the lines of "Joe Somebody of the Libertarian Alliance opposes this issue. 'I oppose this.'" -- MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pre-eminent market libertarian organisation in the UK. A problem may be that the peak time of the Libertarian Alliance was around 20 years ago, in the age before Google. I'll look for more sources but here for example is the Guardian obituary for Chris Tame, written in the context of the organisation: [23]. AllyD (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And further, also from the Guardian, here's their publication of a debate between the Libertarian Alliance and the Institute for Public Policy Research: [24]. AllyD (talk)

More references: BBC News articles from 2006 & 2008: [25], [26]; probable citation in this publication according to Google: [27]. All in all, this seems enough to confirm that "the group has been mentioned in any reliable media sources". AllyD (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can buy an obituary and name their organization in it. Most of the news articles I found were generated by the members of the libertarian alliance. the alliance itself wasn't newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Do you have a source for your assertion that anyone can "buy" a Guardian obituary? AllyD (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Books.google has a number of good refs on Chris Tame and Libertarian Alliance. If Ally doesn't add these refs, I will. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of the book refs from that Google search into the article itself, but note various others from reputable independent publications available only in Snippet view. I can't really see how, on the basis of the refs provided above, this group can be regarded as lacking significant 3rd party coverage; perhaps their prolific blogging actually weakens the case, by making it hard to see past the opinion pieces? AllyD (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but source it more. I worked on it for a while way back when just trying to straighten out the two groups and did note the lack of WP:RS. If you find some, put them in. I just noted that google books had a few refs also to the 1960s group Libertarian Alliance so that should further confuse things - but also points out why it might be good to keep the article and mention all three groups. There certainly are lots of groups on wikipedia that have little more than their organization description and a few stray refs. But at least an encyclopedic function is being fulfilled. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One thing is clear - this article definitely needs to be improved, deepened into their interventions on particular issues. But I see that as more for article rescue than deletion. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is insignificant.--Pink Bull 14:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD and CarolMooreDC; that it was notable at one time, at least, is confirmed by on-line material such as the Chris Tame obits, and other material certainly appears to exist as in the Google Books search. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G.A.L-P.L.G[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX, no evidence found for the existence of this concept or product. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 15:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I feel that this product does exist, but does not have enough to warrant it's own article. The article Laser harp seems to describe this technology, but because there are no reference it should just be merged. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a "super intelligent algorithm", you'd think it would have been noticed in a super reliable source. There is existing technology that accomplishes what this describes -- i.e., you move your fingers about and a machine interprets that, such a projected image of a keyboard that one can "type" upon. GAL-PLG is kind of a long abbreviation, don't you think? And it's kind of like Mr. Mxyzptlk, hard to pronounce. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in redirecting because it is not even verifiable that this is a real term. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't be verified, it is a likely hoax. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. I can't find any sources to verify this acronym or anything listed in the article. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LogicalDOC (software)[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Sources given in the article are trivial. Haakon (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article reads like an advertisement. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is an enterprise content management provider with a focus on document management software. According to the company, the software is designed for business professionals to easily install and use without help from IT... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete advertising-like tone + non-notable subject = no thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hot stain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little-used neologism only used in the works of Maude Barlow. No scholarly or reliable source hits outside of works that Barlow was involved in. Gigs (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If a new term for the concept develops, it can be renamed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Water stress is the accepted term for this concept. Gigs (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the third time (this is getting annoying). Hot stain is not a neologism. I just can't find more referernces on line that meet the Wikipedia standards. Water stress is the internationally accepted term for areas where water has reached below 1,700 cubic meters per person per year. Water scarcity is the internationally accepted term when the water resource is below 1,000 cubic meters per person per year. In contrast, a Hot stain is where water has been *completely* depleted. kgrr ^talk 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offline sources would be fine too. If you recall, I have even used EBSCOHost in the past to search scholarly works (even offline ones) and was unable to find any scholarly references to the term outside of Barlow's work. Gigs (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the nomination statement: The term is used. The term is used by notable person Maude Barlow. Scholarly and reliable sources (involving Barlow) are available. I see no rationale that this article should be deleted due to some Barlow COI issue. Whether this article should be merged to Maude Barlow is an editorial decision, and it is not one that I would agree with. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

probably a neologism, but it's being use worldwide. For example here it's being used by an Australian web site un-related to Maude Barlow*"Fair water use". Fair Water Use. Retrieved 2010-03-19. Australia has been identified a "hot stain": a region of the Earth currently running out of potable water. I would be against a merge with the Maude Barlow article. 76.104.163.79 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Maude Barlow, this particular neologism use of hot stain by Barlow (and her few supporters) is dwarfed by the weight of usage previously extant, wood stain applied hot & Ziehl-Neelsen stain. L0b0t (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find references to the Ziehl-Neelsen stain as being a "hot stain" in quite a few scholarly papers. (This is why I had added the disambiguation link to Ziehl-Neelsen stain in the first place. I also did find a few references to "hot stain" as a wood stain that has been heated prior to use. And, there are about as many "hot stain" references involving peak water/water shortage, etc as there are references to "hot stain" in furniture making. Perhaps what is needed is a disambiguation page for "hot stain" that points to three articles. 1) Hot stain (biology) should point to Ziehl-Neelsen stain since I could not find any other hot stains in that context. 2) Hot stain (wood) should point to Wood stain, which can incorporate a few sentences to indicate that hotstains absorb into the wood faster, etc. 3) Hot stain (water) should point to this article, which can stand on its own. ~~I don't think a disambiguation page should point to the Maude Barlow article because 'hot stain' is not only associated with her. kgrr ^talk 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)~~ Incidentally, the word is thought to have been coined by the world renown hydrologist Dr. Michal Kravik. There is no reason a disambiguation page should point to the Maude Barlow article. kgrr ^talk 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse scientific method[edit]

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

The article tries to define a phrase that appears to be a neologism solely used among opponents against the 9/11 Truth movement, to label the reasoning of the later. It does this by writing an essay, claiming that there exist a concept "Reverse Scientific Method" by misusing diverse references that doesn't support the statements in the article. If a proper reference backs a text "X does Y^[ref]", with a source claiming "^ [ref] X does Y", while the current article instead lets statements like "^ [ref] Y is a Z" back the text. Therefore the text does a very heavy original undue synthesis of the references provided. Beside from that it is heavily political, covering the same topics that Pseudoscience treats much more neutrally. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely original research built on a non-notable neologism. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title is a non-notable neologism. (The phrase was used once in 1910, in an article on "the scope of the scientific method" and more recently by someone who was interviewed by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute to describe the approach of alternative/complementary medicine fans. It may get more traction now that it is being used by some in connection with the 9/11 fringers, but we can't know this.)

The content looks very much like original research. However, whoever marked citations with "not in citation given" was way over-enthusiastic. If a sentence is followed by two footnotes, it's not OK to tag one (or both) in this way just because they support different parts of the text. We are allowed to put information from different sources into a single sentence, if we do it correctly. Also tagging a footnote whose purpose is transparently to link indirectly to a definition somewhere on the web is not helpful at all and looks like an attempt at gaming. Hans Adler 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. it's got some use as a turn of phrase (30K GHits, though only 72 unique), but academic treatment is currently lacking. It's presently only an OR extention of Thomas W. Eager's pithy quote ("These people use the "reverse scientific method"... they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[28]) a concept not notable enough for Wikipedia.— Scientizzle 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personally, I love the quote, but I agree with Kenosis and Scientizzle's appraisals. Even ignoring the WP:OR issues, the subject is just plain undeserving of a page on Wikipedia at present and that's unlikely to change. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 10:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me to, I'll save the section Political Reverse Scientific Method to my own pages to see if it can be refitted to give a short section in the article 9/11 truth movement, but the article as such got me feel like the cat catching a mouse. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not, needed. Pardon for offtopic note! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. C6541 (T↔C) 04:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgie Bingham[edit]

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

Obscure newsreader; subject removed the prod (seconded by another editor) from her own article, so bringing it to AfD Orange Mike | Talk 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this person at RS. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while I can't find anything at Google News about her, newscasters are usually kept if they are prominent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). I found at least one source here, but there is not much else out there. She's barely notable. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - as you yourself said, if they are prominent; no sign of that here. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since no coverage is found.--Pink Bull 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as always, no sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the "no sources = no article" formula. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Incidental Economist[edit]

If you came here because you followed this blog post rallying support to keep this article, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Contested prod. Non-notable blog. No reliable sources cited to establish notability. GregJackP (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a notable blog to me. The blog described has been cited by blogs or print editions of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, National Public Radio, Financial Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Business Week, Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, Politico, The Hill, and other publications and blogs of significance. See http://theincidentaleconomist.com/selected-citations/ for evidence, which is pasted below for convenience:

list of WP:EL collapsed for readability
Mark Thoma. (3/3/10). Links for 2010-03-02. Economist's View. Brad DeLong. (3/3/10). Five things worth reading, mostly economics. Grasping Reality ... Monica Potts. (2/16/10). Arguing against the facts. The American Prospect. Jonathan Cohn. (2/16/10). Give me insurance or give me death. The New Republic. Kate Steadman. (2/16/10). Debating whether health insurance saves lives. Kaiser Health News. Matthew Yglesias. (2/16/10). Yes, health insurance saves lives. Think Progress. Andrew Sullivan. (2/15/10). How many die for lack of insurance? Ctd. The Atlantic. Brad DeLong. (2/15/10). At least a third of what we spend on health care is wasted--and we don't spend enough. Grasping Reality ... Kevin Drum. (2/15/10). Is health insurance good for you? Mother Jones. Ezra Klein. (2/15/10). When opinions on health-care insurance stop being polite and start getting complicated. The Washington Post. Megan McArdle. (2/13/10). Firming up the argument. The Atlantic. Tyler Cowen. (2/13/10). Health insurance and mortality follow-up. Marginal Revolution. Andrew Sullivan. (2/12/10). How many die for lack of insurance? The Atlantic. Matthew Yglesias. (2/12/10). Insurance status and mortality. Think Progress. Megan McArdle. (2/12/10). What do "rightwingers" really think? The Atlantic. Kevin Drum. (2/12/10). Quote of the day. Mother Jones. Merrill Goozner. (2/11/10). Antitrust? Or anti-cost control? The Fiscal Times. Ezra Klein. (2/10/10). Let's not make a deal. The Washington Post. Kevin Drum. (2/8/10). Quick hits. Mother Jones. David Lightman. (2/5/10). House to vote on stripping health insurers' antitrust protection. McClatchy Newspapers. Nick Baumann. (2/4/10). The market for economics. Mother Jones. Mark Thoma. (2/4/10). Is Austrianism serious? Economist's View. Ezra Klein. (2/4/10). More mathbell! The Washington Post. James Kwak. (2/3/10). The Republican plan, II: You're on your own. The Baseline Scenario. Andrew Sullivan. (2/1/10). Pass. The. Damn. Bill. The Atlantic. Ezra Klein. (2/1/10). Plan B is terrible. The Washington Post. Igor Volsky. (1/20/10). Brownï¿½s victory wasnï¿½t a referendum on national health reform legislation. Think Progress. Ezra Klein. (1/13/10). The Senate's awful free rider provision likely to survive negotiations. The Washington Post. Kevin Drum. (1/13/10). Healthcare reform and cost control. Mother Jones. Jonathan Cohn. (1/13/10). House not inclined to roll over, play dead. The New Republic. Jonathan Chait. (1/12/10). Let me explain the Cadillac tax. The New Republic. Andrew Sullivan. (1/12/10). Yes, those Medicare cuts can happen. The Atlantic. Matthew Yglesias. (1/8/10). Health care and wages. Think Progress. Kevin Drum. (1/8/10). Healthcare and wages. Mother Jones. Ezra Klein. (1/8/10). The health-care and wages debate, continued! The Washington Post. Igor Volsky. (12/29/09).Health care industry coordinating effort to opt states out of health care reform. Think Progress. Matthew Yglesias. (12/29/09). Repeal can't happen, rollback can. Think Progress. Jonathan Cohn. (12/29/09). The Kristol ball. The New Republic. Ezra Klein. (12/22/09). Letters to health-care Santa: Bring the market to Medicare Advantage, and the House's employer mandate to the final bill. The Washington Post. Kevin Drum. (12/22/09). Healthcare ping pong? Mother Jones. Patrick Appel. (12/20/09). After reform. The Atlantic. Kevin Drum. (12/20/09). Why 2014? Mother Jones. Ezra Klein. (12/18/09). The 60th vote? The Washington Post. Ezra Klein. (12/15/09). The political cost of failure. The Washington Post. Gwen Robinson. (12/10/09). An economy of one's own. Financial Times. Megan McArdle. (12/9/09). Medicare cost shifting: Does it happen, and how much? The Atlantic. Kevin Drum. (12/9/09). Joe Lieberman is 21% right (and 79% wrong). Mother Jones. Matthew Yglesias. (12/9/09). The phantom menace of cost-shifting. Think Progress. Igor Volsky. (12/9/09). Would the Medicare buy-in hurt providers? Think Progress. Jonathan Cohn. (11/25/09). Daily Treatment, giving thanks edition. The New Republic. Andrew Sullivan. (11/24/09). Health Incentive Plans. The Atlantic. Stephen Koff. (11/21/09). Senate bill would also cut Medicare Advantage but reductions would not be as deep as in House measure. The Plain Dealer. Andrew Sullivan. (11/19/09). Cost control, cost control, cost control, ctd. The Atlantic. Matthew Yglesias. (11/17/09). The next health reform debate. Think Progress. Kevin Drum. (11/17/09). The Swiss system. Mother Jones. Cathy Arnst. (11/2/09). U.S. medical prices highest in the world. Business Week. Jonathan Cohn. (11/2/09). Daily Treatment, man bites dog edition. The New Republic. Ezra Klein. (11/2/09). If Best Buy sold health care. The Washington Post. Jonathan Cohn. (11/2/09). Why American health care is so expensive. The New Republic. Kevin Drum. (11/2/09). The Frakt curve. Mother Jones. Tyler Cowen. (10/31/09). How well will the public option work. Marginal Revolution. Jonathan Cohn. (10/26/09). Daily Treatment, likes and dislikes. The New Republic. Lisa Wangsness. (10/25/09). Fears of health monopoly as Congress urges collaboration. The Boston Globe. David Welna. (10/23/09). Democrats push to end insurer's antitrust exemption. National Public Radio. Jonathan Cohn. (10/21/09). Daily Treatment, biggest losers edition. The New Republic. Esme Deprez. (10/19/09). Reviving an old threat in health-insurance battle. Business Week. Uwe Reinhardt. (10/16/09). Is Medicare raising prices for the privately insured? The New York Times. Andrew Sullivan. (10/16/09). From the dept. of careful what you wish for. The Atlantic. Ezra Klein. (10/15/09). Another perspective on the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry. The Washington Post. Ezra Klein. (10/15/09). The Medicare Advantage scam. The Washington Post. Tyler Cowen. (10/15/09). Austin Frakt and Ian Crosby on the insurance antitrust exemption. Marginal Revolution. Ezra Klein. (10/14/09). Putting hospitals on a diet. The Washington Post. Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (10/14/09). Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: ï¿½Health Insurance Reform Will Lead to Medicare Benefit Cuts for Seniorsï¿½. Kevin Drum. (10/13/09). Is cost shifting bogus? Mother Jones. Timothy Stoltzfus Jost. (10/12/09). Health Care Arena. Politico. Aaron Carroll. (10/8/09). Uniquely American? Or uniquely bad? The Huffington Post. Ezra Klein. (10/7/09). The question of cost-shifting. The Washington Post. A aron Carroll. (10/7/09). High risk pools. Rational Arguments. Cliff Kuang. (10/6/09). How to become a design genius: Take time off. Lots of it. Fast Company. Lea Winerman. (10/5/09). [Under Senate Finance Committee Plan, High-Risk Insurance Pools Get Funding Boost Under Senate Finance Committee plan, high-risk insurance pools get funding boost]. Online NewsHour. Ezra Klein. (10/5/09). Health economist Austin Frakt dismantles the idea that the difference between what private insurers and public insurers pay represents "cost-shifting." The Washington Post. Maggie Mahar. (10/1/09). Seniors would save far more than they lose. The Washington Post. Jane Sasseen and Catherine Arnst. (10/1/09). Why business fears the public option. Business Week. Thomas Greaney. (9/30/09). Health reform and Medicare: Part I. The Health Care Blog. Terence Kane. (9/30/09). Senior-bating in healthcare debate. The Hill. Andrew Sullivan. (9/30/09). 14 cents on the dollar. The Atlantic. Aaron Carroll. (9/29/09). Why are we cutting Medicare Advantage? Rational Arguments. Ezra Klein. (9/29/09). A wasteful program. The Washington Post. Ezra Klein. (9/29/09). Is Medicare Advantage worth it? The Washington Post. Kevin Drum. (9/28/09). Who benefits from Medicare Advantage? Mother Jones. Maggie Mahar. (9/25/09). More on proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage. The Century Foundation. Paul Krugman. (4/2/09). "The banks" versus "some banks." The New York Times.

list of WP:EL collapsed for readability

Mark Thoma. (3/3/10). Links for 2010-03-02. Economist's View.

Brad DeLong. (3/3/10). Five things worth reading, mostly economics. Grasping Reality ...

Monica Potts. (2/16/10). Arguing against the facts. The American Prospect.

Jonathan Cohn. (2/16/10). Give me insurance or give me death. The New Republic.

Kate Steadman. (2/16/10). Debating whether health insurance saves lives. Kaiser Health News.

Matthew Yglesias. (2/16/10). Yes, health insurance saves lives. Think Progress.

Andrew Sullivan. (2/15/10). How many die for lack of insurance? Ctd. The Atlantic.

Brad DeLong. (2/15/10). At least a third of what we spend on health care is wasted--and we don't spend enough. Grasping Reality ...

Kevin Drum. (2/15/10). Is health insurance good for you? Mother Jones.

Ezra Klein. (2/15/10). When opinions on health-care insurance stop being polite and start getting complicated. The Washington Post.

Megan McArdle. (2/13/10). Firming up the argument. The Atlantic.

Tyler Cowen. (2/13/10). Health insurance and mortality follow-up. Marginal Revolution.

Andrew Sullivan. (2/12/10). How many die for lack of insurance? The Atlantic.

Matthew Yglesias. (2/12/10). Insurance status and mortality. Think Progress.

Megan McArdle. (2/12/10). What do "rightwingers" really think? The Atlantic.

Kevin Drum. (2/12/10). Quote of the day. Mother Jones.

Merrill Goozner. (2/11/10). Antitrust? Or anti-cost control? The Fiscal Times.

Ezra Klein. (2/10/10). Let's not make a deal. The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (2/8/10). Quick hits. Mother Jones.

David Lightman. (2/5/10). House to vote on stripping health insurers' antitrust protection. McClatchy Newspapers.

Nick Baumann. (2/4/10). The market for economics. Mother Jones.

Mark Thoma. (2/4/10). Is Austrianism serious? Economist's View.

Ezra Klein. (2/4/10). More mathbell! The Washington Post.

James Kwak. (2/3/10). The Republican plan, II: You're on your own. The Baseline Scenario.

Andrew Sullivan. (2/1/10). Pass. The. Damn. Bill. The Atlantic.

Ezra Klein. (2/1/10). Plan B is terrible. The Washington Post.

Igor Volsky. (1/20/10). Brownï¿½s victory wasnï¿½t a referendum on national health reform legislation. Think Progress.

Ezra Klein. (1/13/10). The Senate's awful free rider provision likely to survive negotiations. The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (1/13/10). Healthcare reform and cost control. Mother Jones.

Jonathan Cohn. (1/13/10). House not inclined to roll over, play dead. The New Republic.

Jonathan Chait. (1/12/10). Let me explain the Cadillac tax. The New Republic.

Andrew Sullivan. (1/12/10). Yes, those Medicare cuts can happen. The Atlantic.

Matthew Yglesias. (1/8/10). Health care and wages. Think Progress.

Kevin Drum. (1/8/10). Healthcare and wages. Mother Jones.

Ezra Klein. (1/8/10). The health-care and wages debate, continued! The Washington Post.

Igor Volsky. (12/29/09).Health care industry coordinating effort to opt states out of health care reform. Think Progress.

Matthew Yglesias. (12/29/09). Repeal can't happen, rollback can. Think Progress.

Jonathan Cohn. (12/29/09). The Kristol ball. The New Republic.

Ezra Klein. (12/22/09). Letters to health-care Santa: Bring the market to Medicare Advantage, and the House's employer mandate to the final bill. The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (12/22/09). Healthcare ping pong? Mother Jones.

Patrick Appel. (12/20/09). After reform. The Atlantic.

Kevin Drum. (12/20/09). Why 2014? Mother Jones.

Ezra Klein. (12/18/09). The 60th vote? The Washington Post.

Ezra Klein. (12/15/09). The political cost of failure. The Washington Post.

Gwen Robinson. (12/10/09). An economy of one's own. Financial Times.

Megan McArdle. (12/9/09). Medicare cost shifting: Does it happen, and how much? The Atlantic.

Kevin Drum. (12/9/09). Joe Lieberman is 21% right (and 79% wrong). Mother Jones.

Matthew Yglesias. (12/9/09). The phantom menace of cost-shifting. Think Progress.

Igor Volsky. (12/9/09). Would the Medicare buy-in hurt providers? Think Progress.

Jonathan Cohn. (11/25/09). Daily Treatment, giving thanks edition. The New Republic.

Andrew Sullivan. (11/24/09). Health Incentive Plans. The Atlantic.

Stephen Koff. (11/21/09). Senate bill would also cut Medicare Advantage but reductions would not be as deep as in House measure. The Plain Dealer.

Andrew Sullivan. (11/19/09). Cost control, cost control, cost control, ctd. The Atlantic.

Matthew Yglesias. (11/17/09). The next health reform debate. Think Progress.

Kevin Drum. (11/17/09). The Swiss system. Mother Jones.

Cathy Arnst. (11/2/09). U.S. medical prices highest in the world. Business Week.

Jonathan Cohn. (11/2/09). Daily Treatment, man bites dog edition. The New Republic.

Ezra Klein. (11/2/09). If Best Buy sold health care. The Washington Post.

Jonathan Cohn. (11/2/09). Why American health care is so expensive. The New Republic.

Kevin Drum. (11/2/09). The Frakt curve. Mother Jones.

Tyler Cowen. (10/31/09). How well will the public option work. Marginal Revolution.

Jonathan Cohn. (10/26/09). Daily Treatment, likes and dislikes. The New Republic.

Lisa Wangsness. (10/25/09). Fears of health monopoly as Congress urges collaboration. The Boston Globe.

David Welna. (10/23/09). Democrats push to end insurer's antitrust exemption. National Public Radio.

Jonathan Cohn. (10/21/09). Daily Treatment, biggest losers edition. The New Republic.

Esme Deprez. (10/19/09). Reviving an old threat in health-insurance battle. Business Week.

Uwe Reinhardt. (10/16/09). Is Medicare raising prices for the privately insured? The New York Times.

Andrew Sullivan. (10/16/09). From the dept. of careful what you wish for. The Atlantic.

Ezra Klein. (10/15/09). Another perspective on the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry. The Washington Post.

Ezra Klein. (10/15/09). The Medicare Advantage scam. The Washington Post.

Tyler Cowen. (10/15/09). Austin Frakt and Ian Crosby on the insurance antitrust exemption. Marginal Revolution.

Ezra Klein. (10/14/09). Putting hospitals on a diet. The Washington Post.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (10/14/09). Health Insurance Reform Daily Mythbuster: ï¿½Health Insurance Reform Will Lead to Medicare Benefit Cuts for Seniorsï¿½.

Kevin Drum. (10/13/09). Is cost shifting bogus? Mother Jones.

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost. (10/12/09). Health Care Arena. Politico.

Aaron Carroll. (10/8/09). Uniquely American? Or uniquely bad? The Huffington Post.

Ezra Klein. (10/7/09). The question of cost-shifting. The Washington Post. A

aron Carroll. (10/7/09). High risk pools. Rational Arguments.

Cliff Kuang. (10/6/09). How to become a design genius: Take time off. Lots of it. Fast Company.

Lea Winerman. (10/5/09). [Under Senate Finance Committee Plan, High-Risk Insurance Pools Get Funding Boost Under Senate Finance Committee plan, high-risk insurance pools get funding boost]. Online NewsHour.

Ezra Klein. (10/5/09). Health economist Austin Frakt dismantles the idea that the difference between what private insurers and public insurers pay represents "cost-shifting." The Washington Post.

Maggie Mahar. (10/1/09). Seniors would save far more than they lose. The Washington Post.

Jane Sasseen and Catherine Arnst. (10/1/09). Why business fears the public option. Business Week.

Thomas Greaney. (9/30/09). Health reform and Medicare: Part I. The Health Care Blog.

Terence Kane. (9/30/09). Senior-bating in healthcare debate. The Hill.

Andrew Sullivan. (9/30/09). 14 cents on the dollar. The Atlantic.

Aaron Carroll. (9/29/09). Why are we cutting Medicare Advantage? Rational Arguments.

Ezra Klein. (9/29/09). A wasteful program. The Washington Post.

Ezra Klein. (9/29/09). Is Medicare Advantage worth it? The Washington Post.

Kevin Drum. (9/28/09). Who benefits from Medicare Advantage? Mother Jones.

Maggie Mahar. (9/25/09). More on proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage. The Century Foundation.

Paul Krugman. (4/2/09). "The banks" versus "some banks." The New York Times.

NBERgal (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC) — NBERgal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Uh, just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it's not notable.--Rebel1916 (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as per nom. Put one blog in, especially a recent one as of 2009, and this will become a blog-asphere.--Morenooso (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have reviewed the entire list supplied by User:NBERgal (I know, I can't believe it either). In this whole list, "The Incidental Economist" is only mentioned in 9 links. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. However, it appears that the blog is quoted in some of the other links. I invite other editors to determine whether these links establish notability for the blog, as none of them actually discuss the blog itself outside of a "you might want to read this" type of note. I see a very compelling notability argument for the contributors to the blog (Austin Frakt, Ian Crosby and Steve Pizer), but am truly unsure if references that cite rather than discuss the blog amount to notability for this website. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I really tried, I could build a website and/or blog and then ensure it gets noted or cited by others. Does that make me notable? Self-published sites or blogs are usually discouraged.--Morenooso (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually some of the citations by journalists do discuss the blog. One such citation has been quoted on the page itself. Moreover, it isn't only that the blog has been cited a lot (that's true of many blogs), but that it has been cited by many prominent journalists at notable institutions. NBERgal (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've never edited a Wikipedia page before, but I use Wikipedia a lot and have read many of the blog pages and the blogs they describe. I find those pages useful because they are a way for "the community" to describe the blog, which is different from the way the blog describes itself. The question of whether this blog should be included is an interesting one but very easy to resolve. It has proven its value in a broad community of journalists and academics (I'm one of the latter). To my mind that makes it as notable as any other already included in Wikipedia and more important than 99% of blogs on the internet. Frankly, I'm surprised this is even worthy of debate. The citation list provided here and on the blog itself clearly demonstrates value and import. Few would counter that except on the basis of overly narrow and rigid definitions. Perhaps it is those definitions that warrant re-evaluation.152.133.6.2 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - FYI, The Incidental Economist is listed on the blogroll of Marginal Revolution (see Blogs We Like in left-hand column). It is also listed under the name "Austin Frakt" on The Daily Dish (see Blog Love in right-hand column, alphabetized by last name). Anyone familiar with the blogosphere will know that recognition on those two very prominent blogs is a high honor and confers a substantial amount of credibility. Wikigronk (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets neither of the 3 criteria for being notable in WP:WEB. --Sbluen (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Being linked to in a blogroll is decided NOT a criterion. That said, I suspect there may be future notability here, and I wouldn't be surprised if this gets an article at some point, but not yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An example of a notable blog, as shown by its widespread citation. Just as that would establish the importance of a journal, so does it here. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David C. Hëwitt[edit]

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

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

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

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by RHaworth (talk · contribs) with the rationale "no evidence of notability." The article creator explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page, thereby failing the primary criteria for deletion by prod, so I'm bringing it here. I should note that the article has been deleted twice as A7.

~~I am neutral for now.~~ —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 (Person). None of the tags in there connote notability. Not tagged yet. Reads like a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability. (GregJackP (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT as this fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on marginality of notability and messiness of the article. A cheap redirect and merger to Gorerotted, of which is was a band member, is an easy way out. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the fact that IMDB credits and links to external verifications now exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC) — Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment IMDb is not a [WP:SOURCE|reliable source]]. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Google search for David C. Hëwitt (aka David Charles Hewitt) returns many results for CD releases etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) 10 March 2010 — Are Release (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment CD releases alone are not indicative of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment On the contrary, much like Wikipedia IMDb has very strict rules as to which films and artists they allow on their site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:NF for the use of IMDb as a verifiable, reliable source for Wikipedia. The notability guideline specifically excludes the use of IMDb as a source of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - There's no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment To appear on their database IMDb require a much higher level of notability than Wikipedia's minimum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) — Duplicate !vote: Are Release (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Comment - perhaps, but we're not on IMDb, we are on WP, and the WP standards preclude the use of IMDb to establish notability. The sources used by IMDb can be used, you just can't use IMDb itself. (GregJackP (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

- Please, only one!vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy played lead guitar with the biggest death metal band to come out of the UK (Gorerotted) who signed to the biggest metal label in the world (Metal Blade). And for fans like me it’s good to read about their history they’re awesome musicians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Kappelmeister (talk • contribs) 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC) — Die Kappelmeister (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable sources and smells like written by his agent. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally though persons of note do employ agents to guide their careers and write press releases for them - that is how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not the place to put press releases. (GregJackP (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - Semantics - generally persons of note do employ agents to guide their careers and write 'Wikipedia' articles for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty Forty 080 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually no. Notable people get written about before any publicist is needed to write it for them. -- Whpq (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One should note that all of the unsigned comments have contributed ONLY to this page or the article in question,and are possibly socks of the original creator, Are Release. Second, the sources cited state that this is an up-and-coming (maybe) composer, and is therefore not notable. Therefore, Delete. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this link for some 'notable composers of orchestral soundtracks': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_score#Orchestral_film_scoresAre Release (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You can't use Wikipedia as a source, let alone to demonstrate notability. And let's not ignore the fact that you added his name to that article yourself: [29]. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why was this relisted? All of the keep !votes are by SPA's and all of their arguments amount to "I like it" or "it's on IMDb". Most of the references on the article are not independent of the subject, one is a Wikipedia article which the article creator edited to add Mr. Hewitt's name, and another may be reliable but doesn't establish notability in my view. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my !vote from neutral to delete per my comment above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are either PR info or, in the case of onenightatthecurtain, inaccessible. (I keep all popups blocked, and this site seems inaccessible unless popups are enabled for it. If people are stupid enough to work like that when they create a site, OK. I just don't visit them.) And the other two are Wikipedia and IMDb - neither accepted here as reliable references. As yet unpublished articles don't count. Apart from that, he's a man (sorry, person) doing a job. Not a John Williams yet. Some day, maybe. Peridon (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither the article nor any argument above convinces me this passes WP:MUSIC. And I echo KuyaBriBri's sentiment: I don't see why this was relisted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because WP:RELISTINGISEVIL??? (just kidding, I've nominated that ridiculous page for deletion too.) JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 17:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - If you choose not to access a reference source on an external website because you feel 'pop ups are stupid' that is hardly the fault of the person in the article and is an irrelevant comment.

Irrelevant comment Popups aren't stupid - most of them are money-spinning adverts that I don't want to know about. The people that insist on them, or on the latest version of Flash (for another case), are. They lose visitors if they are not prepared to give a more accessible option for those using slower machines just for the sake of being, err, flash... The link was given in the article. If I can't access it, others won't be able to either. Not my loss. Possibly yours, if it's your site. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Seemingly, it appears information about the subject matter (or an article) may only be added to the Wikipedia pages by persons who have no knowledge of the subject matter itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Are Release (talk • contribs) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is only one editor, dealing with one problematic link. The reality is that the "onenightatthecurtain" site is for the TV pilot the article's subject worked on. It also fails to be an independent reliable source for establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Here is my summary about the status of this article and deletion debate. It has many problems including:

Notability: No demonstration of notability, and no outside sources other than the IMDB. Clearly fails the guidelines
References: Referenced to other Wikipedia articles and the IMDB, not accepted sources. It also is clearly not done in the correct style.
The Author: The author has practically admitted to being an agent of the person who this article is written about, has created meatpuppets to sway the vote of this afd, and has repeatedly demonstrated their lack of knowledge of the way Wikipedia works (people can be hired to create Wikipedia articles, NPOV and citation issues).
Flawed Arguments: The creator claims here that "creating, managing and updating a page is a time consuming business. I will adhere to all of the necessary editing protocols in time but it is frustrating to have to restart the same article over and over from scratch." If the article does not belong on WP, then it does not belong. Unless he becomes more notable, and can have reliable sources found, then most of the article is unencylopedic and constitutes original research.
The Numbers: Over 10 trusted WP editors have voted to delete, upholding the Notability policy. The only keep votes come from the creator as discussed above and his/her meatpuppets (SPAs).

The above five points clearly show why Deleting this article Right Now is necessary. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I asked the admin who relisted this article why he relisted it when consensus clearly leaned towards delete and he left me this response on my talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem here is twofold. First, we don't have any substantive, independent sources, just credits. That causes this article to fail the GnG. Second, it's not clear that the subject would pass WP:MUSIC although it's a near miss in a couple of areas. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oleena[edit]

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

Was tagged for speedy deletion but submitter obviously wants to keep it, so putting it forward for AFD AIRcorn (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You should have reverted and given a vandalism-warning (uw-speedy). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ( CSD A7) I have restored the speedy deletion tag which was removed by the article's author. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, a list of gigs isn't an entry or a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I could not possibly agree more with JamesBWatson and Gene93k. Evalpor (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not even an article, and if cleaned up and fully rewritten still wouldn't be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was improved through normal editing. vvv^t 19:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union[edit]

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

Looks like WP:SYN for me: it advocates the idea that "research in the Soviet Union in science and humanities was placed from the very beginning under a strict ideological scrutiny" and introduces neologism "Black Book of Soviet science", while not quoting any sources for those facts. Lead and policy sections lack any sources. vvv^t 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead may lack sources, and, arguably, ought to. Since there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't discussed (and properly cited) in the main body of the article, it is normally okay to leave the citations in the main body and have none at all in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE.
However, the policy section ought to be cited, and may be cut if this is not done.
The criticism that it's a WP:SYN may be valid; I can't read the Russian language sources and I don't trust automatic translators, so I can't check. Therefore this is a remark rather than a !vote and should not be read as a !vote of any kind.
Certainly the title of this article is inherently POV and if kept, this material must be renamed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is obviously unfamiliar with the basic facts about Soviet science. Yes, indeed science was strictly controlled by the Communist party and KGB, and ideological dogmas were imposed. Several branches of science were outlawed, and their followers were prosecuted. These are well known basic facts. Some references can be added of course, but the article already has a pretty good list of references. It should be also mentioned that the nomination for deletion was prompted by similar activities in ruwiki. They are trying to delete this article in ruwiki as "an attempt to smear the motherland by emigrants from Russia". It should be also mentioned that current Russian president signed a decree against falsifications of Russian history. In other words, only pro-government historical research is supported. SA ru (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (the vote stated clearly upon request). The article does not violate WP:SYN because it does not really have a political agenda, but rather simply describes a specific topic: Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. This is not a fork to "Research in the Soviet Union" because it describes a separate entity. It does not push an extreme point of view ("some research was suppressed in the Soviet Union, and that was very bad" vs "some research was suppressed in the Soviet Union, and that was very good"). The topic is quite notable, and there is a vast literature on that topic. Whether or not this article describes the USSR positively or negatively is also not an issue here. (Unfortunately this article most likely will be deleted in ruwiki because some administrators believe that it is unpatriotic). So, keep and expand. SA ru (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is OK. Furthermore this article was nominated under the pressure back from Russian Wikipedia concerning the fact that the English article is present. Therefore keep. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 14:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The drawbacks mentioned in the nomination are fixable by regular editing. A number of general-purpose unreferenced phrases may be safely deleted without particular harm, an I will do this. Individual "per-science" sections is the main set of encyclopedic facts; philosophical/political opinions and generalizations about how and why it happened are important, but they are opinions of researches, and I agree that they must be properly attributed. The subject itself is a well-defined sub-topic, peculiar to the USSR, of a potentially huge topic Science and technology in the Soviet Union, with plenty of references, so it is naturally splittable per wikipedia customs of arranging material. - Altenmann >t 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and verifiable topic. Dew Kane (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New Vrindaban. Sandstein 10:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhupada's Palace of Gold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prabhupada's Palace of Gold

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

The article is about non-notable architectural object. No sufficient notability besides inclusion in New Vrindavana article. Palace place is not independent publisher. Wikid ^as© 11:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does have significant coverage from independent reliable sources like the Akron Beacon Journal, Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and The New York Times which referrs to it as ""America's Taj Mahal." [30][31][32][33] It took only a 3 second g-news search to find these. I know it takes longer to set up an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nomination was based on the principle that this modern work of architecture is not: A work that has been published in the architectural press. eg. the Architects Journal It is not a work by a major recognised architect. It does not contribute to the discourse of architectural theory. It has not won a major national or international prize. eg. the Stirling Prize

Based on this it is not notable as architectural work, as per rationale it has to be merged into New Vrindavan, since it is one and the same place, to avoid confusion. Wikid ^as© 15:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Fold it into the New Vrindaban article. The two are largely synonymous anyhow. Brian Powell (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with New Vrindaban--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either on its own, or merge it with the New Vrindaban article. The Palace of Gold is located at New Vrindaban, but it is significant on its own, not just architecturally, but culturally and because of its (perhaps scandalous) history. Geneisner (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with New Vrindaban. It is a part of the whole, and the essential facts will fit quite nicely into the New Vrindaban article, as a section. --Bejnar (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I-ology[edit]

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

Part of a four article walled-garden. This was prodded as being promotional over a month ago but the prod was recently disputed. The subject fails our general notability guideline because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Note that the related articles Woody Woodward, Law of Importance and Emotional fingerprint are also at AfD. Them From Space 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. The only sources I can find that relate to the film are closely associated with its producers or subjects. (Not to be confused with Iology, a web marketing firm.) Cnilep (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Woody Woodward (businessman and author), as that article might have a slim chance of showing notability, while this film one does not. I do understand that if the Woodward article is deleted, my redirect opinion will be moot. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional fingerprint[edit]

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

Part of a four article walled-garden. This was prodded as being promotional over a month ago but the prod was recently disputed. The subject fails our general notability guideline because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Note that the related articles Woody Woodward, Law of Importance and I-ology are also at AfD. Them From Space 10:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references are four books by Woody Woodward, creator of the idea (not sure why the last one lists a different author?), and a blog by another self-help author. None qualify as reliable third-party sources. Cnilep (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete =His books are not even Not even in amazon, let alone worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law of Importance[edit]

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

Part of a four article walled-garden. This was prodded as being promotional over a month ago but the prod was recently disputed. The subject fails our general notability guideline because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Note that the related articles Woody Woodward, Emotional fingerprint and I-ology are also at AfD. Them From Space 10:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The four Notes items are two books by Woody Woodward, creator of the "law" (not sure why the second one lists a different author?), Woodward's own web site, and a blog by another self-help author. The references are all books by Woodward. None qualify as reliable third-party sources. Cnilep (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No such "law" exists, it can not be verified by any identifiably reliable sources, and it smacks of soapboxing and original research. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Woodward (businessman and author)[edit]

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

Part of a four article walled-garden. This was prodded as being promotional over a month ago but the prod was recently disputed. The subject fails our general notability guideline because he has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. This article claims that he is notable for originating the Law of Importance, Emotional fingerprint and I-ology but those corresponding articles are also at AfD. Them From Space 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Woodward himself looks marginally notable based on the sources and coverage on the article, although his theories probably won't past muster. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The four references cited are two books by Woodward (not sure why the second one lists a different author?), a blog, and a video-sharing site. None qualify as reliable third-party sources. Cnilep (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His major work, Millionaire Dropouts is not even in Worldcat--nor are any of the other works listed. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus was to delete, there was only one unrebutted keep !vote. I will wp:userfy on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Gopinath Temple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Radha Gopinath Temple

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

There is no coverage in third party reliable sources independent of the subject that is sufficient for inclusion. Wikid ^as© 10:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not to be cofused with possibly notable temples in Vrindavana and Nagpur, Maharashtra. Wikid ^as© 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a good source if you want to improve the article: [34] Dew Kane (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dew Kane's link shows the Radha Gopinath temple at Vrindavan, Mathura (like WikiD has cautioned above). This one is a relatively new temple with no significant coverage in independent sources.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, search for ISKCON Chowpatty [35][36] --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[37]: one of 4 temples in and around Mumbai. Chowpatty one in city, Juhu (Mumbai main temple) in suburban. Khargar and Mira Road outside Mumbai boundaries. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; until reliable sources are found that attribute notability to this temple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EmForge[edit]

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

Contested prod, reasoning was lack of reliable sources indicating notability; I'm inclined to agree. Falcon8765 (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Unable to locate any reliable sources mentioning this site at all. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a significant conflict of interest issue considering the article's creator (User:Kwiecienm) --Cybercobra (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And this has been deleted thrice before. Recommend WP:SALTing if outcome is deletion. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also please salt, per the article's history of deletions and recreations. This was also deleted via AfD on ru.wiki [38]. Them From Space 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I have determined that this deletion request was bad-faith, frivolous, and/or vexatious and should not be pursued. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swinton Circle[edit]

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

Requested for deletion by the Swinton Circle Chairman (OTRS ticket#2010031410012696) due to vandalism concerns. From what I can see, the organization is at best marginally notable and I don't see why we should not give them their wish. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand how they could be considered "marginally notable"; they're the driving force behind the Powellite faction of the British Conservative Party. Thirty seconds on HighBeam shows that the group are the continued subject of significant coverage in multiple independent non-trivial sources ([39], [40], [41], [42]), and according to their own website their speakers in 2009 alone included inter alia Peter Mullen, Douglas Murray, Jim Allister, Philip Dunne, Nigel Hastilow, Peter Bone and numerous MPs; this is not some tiny fringe club but a significant faction within the political party likely to form the next British government in two months, albeit a faction which the party leadership prefer to pretend doesn't exist. While I can't see the OTRS request, I assume it relates to the split in the faction between two rival wings each claiming the same name (see the article talkpage for some background), but I can't see any possible grounds for a "default to delete" position, and can see plenty of grounds for keeping. AFD is not a mechanism for political parties to try to airbrush embarrassing incidents out of their history in the run-up to a general election. – iride scent 10:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Iridesecent. Dwain (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a constant victim of politically inspired vandalism, and certainly the organisation does not warrant a Wikipedia entry.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Swinton_Circle" —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanDHarvey (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query to Stifle Is the "Swinton Circle Chairman" who submitted the OTRS ticket Mr Harvey, who is not the chairman of the Swinton Circle which is the topic of the article, but of a rival body of the same name formed following a split in the wake of this article? If so, while his comments are not necessarily invalid, he has a severe COI when it comes to assessing the importance of the "rival" Swinton Circle that is the subject of the article. – iride scent 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer this question because of the confidentiality of OTRS, sadly. Stifle (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescent. Vandalism is not a reason for deletion. It's often an unofficial indicator of notability in that someone desperately wants rid... Peridon (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AgilePHP[edit]

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

Non-notable software. It lacks multiple, reliable sources. Ekerazha (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Ekerazha (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contested "prod". Ekerazha (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable back-office software. Advertising: The goal of AgilePHP is quite simple - be a very lightweight, extensible, PHP Rapid Application Development framework that encourages the use of industry standards and best practices while developing, testing, and deploying PHP web applications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it reads like spam, it's probably spam. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, fails WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of V (2009_TV_series) episodes. The "secondary sources" are merely imdb and plot re-tellings, there's no in depth coverage (as is usual on such articles). Thus, since an obvious merge target exists, that is the obvious answer Black Kite 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Normal Anymore[edit]

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

Procedural nom, contested prod. Little or no real world relevance. No evidence that this episode is particularly notable. Consists entirely of plot and trivia.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

A Bright New Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's Only the Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Corporation Cart (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) — Corporation Cart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so please request deletion for each episode of The Simpsons, or Family Guy, or Star Trek, or House... C'mon man... By the way, I totally disagree with the request of deletion. --Wizard IT (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article must be examined on its own merit, or in this case lack thereof. 121.45.214.114 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is in the wrong place, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically mentions Star Trek and that it DOESN'T examine each article on it's own merit but instead includes them all, simply because it's Star Trek. Lime in the Coconut 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All plot and trivia. 121.45.214.114 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — 121.45.214.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Corporation Cart (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite their lack of previous edits, the nominator and IP are correct. There are no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've found some secodnary sources, and lots of trivial mentions. I'd like to find and add reviews, but I don't have the time to look through huge pile of Ghits. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while i'm not a wiki lawyer and can't spout off past debate discussions, I don't see how this article "isn't particularly notable". I can see how it only consists of plot at it's current state but if you look at a lot of similar articles there's not much more to add besides guest stars, any references to other works (dismissed as trivia) or maybe the soundtrack (again, trivial). I see the references to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but in that very article, under the section "Creation of articles" it references the various Star Trek series and that every episode in every series is given an article. I'm at a loss looking through policies to find a model for articles on TV shows. I looked through The Sopranos and noticed every single episode has an article. Again, not trying to go with the "other stuff" argument but trying to find an established precedent. None of the Sopranos' articles I read had references, and consist of little more than plot. The same can be said for 99% of TV episode articles. The difference here, as I see it, is that this show is in it's first season and particularly popular (#2 in timeslot). It hasn't been broadcast worldwide yet. It's still in the first season, with several episodes to come. Look at the article on the pilot episode... certainly it is a much more in-depth article. Given time (reasonable would be at least the end of the season, or even better, until the DVDs come out with extra material to add to each article) each page would look like the pilot's or the Sopranos, Simpsons, etc. It's too early IMO to delete this page. But if someone could point to a policy or precedent for TV episodes, it would make this much more cut and dry. Lime in the Coconut 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a well-written summary of a TV show and it was useful for me. ThunderE6 (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of V (2009 TV series) episodes. Virtually all nationally broadcast television programs end up having enough real-world information to write an article, so I don't really see the wisdom in eliminating the article when there's a perfectly acceptable merge target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Baker[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Article lacks specific references to establish notability or WP:PROF. ttonyb (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:PROF based on a Gscholar search; Gnews was similarly unavailing, however, due to the commonnesss of the name I might have missed something. When searching under Gscholar, be careful to search for Susan M. Baker, as Susan Baker is an extraordinarily common name, and yielded only a single sure hit for the subject (based on field of inquiry, etc). Ray^Talk 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On GS I get one hit with 53 cites. Does not seem to be enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not notable. Three degrees from the same school is already a strike against her. Hairhorn (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

In some parts of academia, there is an opinion that it is inappropriate to go to the same school for grad school as for undergrad - you're supposed to get wider exposure to the research community. People who go to the same school for various degrees, by this reasoning, are under some suspicion for coming from a walled garden, particularly if the school in question does not have a great reputation. It's not an argument I would care to use, as there are too many conditionals and what-ifs that may intervene, but it's one I've heard before. Ray^Talk 23:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I hadn't come across the idea before. I guess it varies between cultures, but I doubt if a person with a first degree, a master's and a PhD all from Harvard would be held to be of less account. However, the idea won't help this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nowism[edit]

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

not notable philosophy Rd232 ^talk 08:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to verifiability concerns. I have added a ((hoax)) template to the article, as I feel there is cause for reasonable suspicion of that here. The term "nowism" seems to be often used to refer to a culture of wanting things instantly (eg: [43], [44]), and is defined in a similar way by the Urban Dictionary here: [45]. However, I can find no reference to nowism as defined in this article (the OED contains no definitions whatsoever for the word), and nor can I find any proof of the existence of one A. Pearl, whose poems are said to have inspired this philosophy.

As this article currently stands, I'm !voting Delete on verifiability grounds. Should someone discover sources to verify the truth of this article, the ((hoax)) template should be removed, and I'll reconsider my position. Even in that eventuality, though, notability concerns would surely remain. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl is said to have been born in 1986. The article creator is User:Fig1986. I figure they may be one and the same, so leaning towards non-notable rather than hoax. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Neologism. The source links to newspapers and books, above, identify "nowism" as either a philosophy of instant gratification or a philosophical idea of the present moment as opposed to other moments. Nowhere do I see nowism defined as it is in this article. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. For all you know, this A. Pearl could be the article creator masquerading as some great philosopher. Dew Kane (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not shown. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hudson: Artist[edit]

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

Non-notable artist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References in article do not support WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST or do not meet WP:RS criteria. ttonyb (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His exhibition in the Trolley Gallery was a subject of multiple independent reviews [46], [47], [48]. You can find more informations about this artist for example in The New York Times, Cosa Gallery, London Evening Standard etc. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link #2 listed above is a press-release. The Cosa Gallery link does not count as it is his gallery's write-up on him. The New York Times article is not about his art but uses him as an example of the cost of living in London. The other links are legitimate coverage, although the London Evening Standard seems to be the only high-profile coverage. freshacconci talktalk 12:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)c[reply]

Thanks for your useful input, Freshacconci. I included the NYT link, because it says that ...paintings have already earned him several well-reviewed gallery exhibits, and this is important for our consideration. Additionally, you can find a reliable information about his future project here. Personally I think Hudson meets our criteria for artists, as his works has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Culture24 is a very reputable site and dedicates an article.[49] Exhibition at Hiscox with Stella Vine:[50] see review in The First Post [51] (go to pages 2 and 3). Also solo show at Hiscox.[52] Plus other coverage as above and in the article. Ty 14:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for some of the entries which may not have the strongest anchorage to 'notable' links but I hope you can see that this is a legitimate entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chewbacca66 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Dorment, art critic of The Daily Telegraph described Hudson and fellow artist Laurence Owen as: "Astonishing Young Painters". --Chewbacca66 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that? The Daily Telegraph did say: "New Artists: One of the freshest group shows in years, featuring the remarkable work of Henry Hudson and Laurence Owen, at London's most interesting new gallery. 20 Hoxton Square, London N1" in May 2007.[53]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge inventory management[edit]

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

Non-notable essay; contested prod. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Add that it's mostly incoherent and trivial. Ray^Talk 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not contain sufficient context to allow other editors to identify the topic and meaningfully improve it. That would ordinarily be grounds for a G1 or A1 speedy delete.- DustFormsWords (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random sanity[edit]

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

Search on Google is mostly false positives, non-notable independent Hip-hop group. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the usual myspace garage bands that makes grand claims without providing any evidence. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Google comes up with nothing other than the group's own YouTube and blog accounts. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources readily found. Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plutonrecords[edit]

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

Sadly, despite its claim, I could not find any reliable sources on this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content (reliable), bad grammar and it's a traduction from the es.Wikipedia article Plutonrecords. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Can't find any info on this label other than blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete There is not any reason to delete Plutonrecords. All information is reliable. Such simple as checking of plutonrecords in google . There are albums edited under plutonrecords label and you can find it on Itunes, Last Fm, Mtv, CDBABY, etc. lyke http://www.emusic.com/label/plutonrecords-vaso-Music-fts-rec-CD-Baby-MP3-Download/389024.html

Also you can find historical reference of plutonrecords in "Diccionario del Rock Latino". You can find more info searching about bands on plutonrecords. Without going any further BLANCO (Plutonrecords-Vaso Music-FTS Records) was selected as one of the best albums of the decade by the La Dosis magazine and the radio program act of faith. Please investigate before you write negative comments about something on wikipedia. Contribute correct grammar maul instead of important information for the general culture. Thanks! SM 06:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)SM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmillerblack (talk • contribs)

- First of all, chill out. Second of all, no one here has made negative comments. I checked out the eMusic link you posted, and that doesn't necessarily point to notability because songs that aren't even on albums can make it onto file-sharing programs like that. (Other Wikipedia articles don't really qualify as reliable sources either.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ONE MORE TIME - PLEASE DO NOT Delete eMusic is not a to share music site, in eMusic you can buy only music edited by records labels, mayor and independent.

You should investigate better before disapprove something. Plutonrecords was a Independent label that work hard, was vanguardist and deserves respect.

The most important band of this record label was CULTO OCULTO that edited three albums with plutonrecords. Here you got some links about it, first one was the presentation of BLANCO album in most important TV in Spain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUxZm8NduEs

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/cultooculto

http://origin.www.mtvla.com/bands/az/cultooculto/bio.jhtml

http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/blanco/id210435127

You should be have a personal problem with it, because I don't find any other reason for your negative pressure about it.

Please build, not destroy. SM 11:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)SM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmillerblack (talk • contribs)

I have not been able to locate any reliable sources for this content, so I recommend it should be deleted.
Incidentally, Seanmillerblack, do you have anything to declare?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added additional citations from newspapers from that time. You have to understand that at the that moment Plutonrecords was created (1996) on www.plutonrecords.com (Domine Owned by other people from 2005) Wikipedia had not be created, the internet was young. The most information about it was in newspapers and magazines and Plutonrecords was a very vanguardist proyect at this moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanmillerblack (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better referencing is found to indicate notability. The references to Wikipedia pages do not count as they are editable. The Dictionary of Latin Rock ref goes to a page selling the book. I can't find Pluton on FTS - just the band Culto oculto. They are obviously notable, but this is not transferable. The remaining three are uncertain as they are just names. The quote from El Universal does indicate a certain claim to notability, but this needs supporting. I appreciate that back then there were far fewer sources online that will still be there, but notability does tend not to fade. Please don't get wound-up. Ranting and telling us how it should be done only harm your case. We want to build - but like the Hebrews in Egypt we need some straw to help us make the bricks. If you can't find the stuff required in time, there's no reason why the article cannot be added again later - when the needed references are found. Not before, please. Better English would be nice, but we can always sort that out. Please note also that the existence of another article is no guarantee of a particular article's survival. Especially, the different language Wikipedias do have different standards. There is often co-operation between editors in different languages (as in one case I've recently been involved with), but what goes in one may not go in another. Keep calm and listen to us. We might actually be trying to help you.... Peridon (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a record label with no notable artists cannot possibly be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Calx (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, but really, you could've saved us an AFD nom if you'd just boldly redirected to the band. Ray^Talk 05:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

StealthNet[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any coverage, and the only references given in the article are forum posts. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a review of this software in a German computer magazine and several news-posts on German online IT-Newspapers (like heise.de http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Filesharing-mit-StealthNet-wenig-anonym-180173.html) The linked article is just an example (and quite an old one) that refers to the quite very very old version 8.1.x. with about 4000 to 5000 users I think it is worth to be mentioned in the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylee Sato (talk • contribs) 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that the forum posts are the only way the changelogs are released, so I think they have to be linked.--Andylee Sato (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem to have them there, but there needs to be additional references to reliable coverage from reliable third-parties. Haakon (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to include some non-forum-links at the upcoming evening. would this be enough to get rid of this discussion? ;-)--188.22.30.50 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could, if the links pointed to cases of significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. I added the suggested Heise.de source now, which I think helps. Haakon (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StealthNet is a popular program especially in France and Germany. It is relevant as it is one of the few (IMHO the only) usable anonymous filesharing programs, which in term constitute a politically relevant development vis à vis internet censorship. The article itself is well written and informative.

Here are a few (over 70k) StealthNet-related Google hits: http://www.google.de/search?client=opera&rls=de&q=stealthnet&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Please don't delete articles just because you haven't heard of the subject or don't care for it. Other readers need the information. Maikel (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am wondering why rshare article in english wikipedia never got a requestfordeletion? that article is way smaller and its just a subset of the stealthnet stuff, or to say the rshare (protocol, originally also a client) efforts are being continued in the stealthnet project for quite a while now. english wikipedia is also suffering from the deletionist in similar scales as in the german wikipedia it seems. delete wars and exclusionism at all cost. why delete just a single bit of non-spam information from a user-driven project such as wikipedia and lose the work that countless other fellow participants try to contribute. i will never understand. :( Suggestednickname (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would much prefer keeping this article. I agree, actually, anyone can access to more than 74000 links to Stealthnet (just try google). Regarding to WP criteria, there are reason to keep it, as many similar software articles, on many domains. --Philippe.petrinko (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC) (Sorry my account is global but French originated (and fully identified) - but badly consolidated between FR and EN Wikipedia subdomains :-/ )[reply]

+ Keep article, relevant programm within relevant topic. Getting pretty popular in Germany, France and Japan. --80.152.134.128 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 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 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles don't get kept by counting Google hits or claiming they're getting popular somewhere. We need reliable sources, which at the moment we just don't seem to have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Andrew Lenahan said it best. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinnington Colliery Band[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC; also seems to be covered by WP:NOT#NEWS. Universal doesn't have any record of them and they haven't yet produced any singles or albums that can be found. Yet. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a reference to the album itself which is available on Decca Records, a label in Universal Music Group from 8th March 2010.
Have added a second reference to the A Band For Britain show which is showing at 9pm on BBC2 on 8th March 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathdavid (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 March 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 02:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band now appears to be notable and the article is sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepContract with major record label, 2 articles in major newspapers. Edison (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in major media.[54][55][56] Also gets a hit in Who's who in music of 1949[57] but no preview available online. ShipFan (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Release now live on Spotify at: http://open.spotify.com/album/41FLVUlZndhuipaRQLui2R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathdavid (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A brass band with at least an 100 year history and which outlived it's colliery is at least as memorable as some of the dreadful garage and hip--hop music routinely featured in WP. This is an organisation that has taught generations of amateur musicians and which wins awards.Brunnian (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was MERGE Per DGG Merge into Kenneth Roemer Mike Cline (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covers, Titles, and Tables: Anthologies and The Formations of American Literary Canons[edit]

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

Non-notable website. 10,000 hits in 2.5 years. The "favorable attention" that the article asserts is not much more than a passing mention in a report. Speedy deletion declined based on this reference. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 8 March 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 02:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kenneth Roemer Fascinating project to compare the contents of literature course anthologies, but not yet notable. However, I think the project leader, who has published a good deal of other work, probably is. This is too large a change to make during an AfD,so I started a stub article on him, and this can be merged into it DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Lunina[edit]

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

Contested prod. NY Times references are from oped piece written by the subject, and the PRI reference comes from that article also, all relating to her view on the Bear Stearns collapse (WP:Oneevent. Attollo reference is from her new employer. No reliable sources in GHits, GNews limited to above, no GBooks/GScholar hits. GregJackP (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 March 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 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. Of the sources listed in the article, the New York Times article is reliable (editorial control), but not independent, being written by Ms Lunina herself. The DealBook Blog may or may not be reliable but in any case the coverage is not significant, being essentially just a vox pop. The one at PRI's The World is interesting - it's both reliable and significant but again it's just a really extended vox pop look at the collapse of her employer. My good faith searches failed to turn up anything else that could be construed as a significant coverage in a reliable, independent source. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The analysis of DustFormsWords demonstrates that there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popsical[edit]

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

Neologism, article has been a stub for 3 years. Ridernyc (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has sources indicating notability of music genre.--Pink Bull 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

really the sources describe it's development and history or are they just throwing around a poorly defined neologism? Ridernyc (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice how every article uses the term "popsical" in quotes, almost always a sure sign of a neologism. Ridernyc (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted it can be defined as a neologism, but WP:NEO doesn't preclude articles on neologisms if they are notable. This one appears to be notable. One of the sources used for the article is a full profile on the term.[58] --Pink Bull 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is a poorly defined neologism, one source describes it as a former popular music performer playing classical music, another describes it as classical music with pop music elements. Forget poorly defined there actually is no definition it's just a word made up as a joke. Ridernyc (talk) 15:28, 16 March 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 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article amount to "it exists", but do not constitute "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" as required by the general notability guidelines. Good faith Google searches do not return additional sources (except as a misspelling of "popsicle"). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - I'll assume in good faith that the St Louis Post-Dispatch story, which is behind a paywall, is an independent, reliable source, and that Pink Bull has actually read the article and not just a summary on Google. Even assuming that, it's the only such source. The requirement at the general notability guidelines is sources, plural. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave as a redlink — I have no opinion on keeping or deleting, but consensus goes for deletion, it should be recreated as a redirect to Popsicle per Dust's observation. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Even if it exists, there doesn't seem to be much of anything to say about it within an encyclopedic context. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This gives me the impression that all it is is a minimally-used, fan-made term to describe some music. There are only three artists listed as "popsical". This sort of coverage is worse than mere stubness. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-NRG[edit]

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

Neologism, a form of dance music that is slightly different form 2 other forms of dance music. No real description of style or development. The one reference listed is a tiny little stub of information. Ridernyc (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 8 March 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 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources I found describe Nu-NRG as an artist, not a genre -- but even those sources are only from places like YouTube. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references are sparse, and out of all the artists mentioned as Nu-NRG in the article, only one of them has a wikipedia article. Seems very nonnotable. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 00:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scot and Maurine Proctor[edit]

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

Thin on sources. Founder of non-notable mag. Redlinky. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources available do not convey notability of this couple. This said, regardless of the pairing, I'm thinking that, once they attain notability, they should each have an article that stands up to our standards. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first off, I think Meridian Magazine is a significant publication. Also, their edition of Lucy Mack Smith's history of Joseph Smith may be disliked by some historicans, but it is widely read and used. The fact of the matter is that most things Scot and Maurine do, they do as a couple, such as publishing Meridian Magazine, as well as most of their books, so arguing for seperate articles makes about as much sense as saying we should have seperate articles on Jared and Jerusha Hess.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
- I'll concede to that for the as-a-couple factor, which unto itself is fine. In reviewing the article, however, I've found only one viable reference point. I've already stricken one that was going to a nonexistent page on Deseret Books' website. Biggest concern I have is that we only have a review of their DVD that would even go near being a reliable source of information - the rest appear to be blogs and book sellers. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several more references. Any future debate needs to consider these new references before weighing what should be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:39, 8 March 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 02:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cigarettes & Alcohol. No one favors keeping this as a separate article, and the majority of !votes that favored merge weren't rebutted. Given preference to maintain information, the merge is more favored position. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Up (Oasis song)[edit]

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

Not enough info to merit it's own page. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cigarettes & Alcohol. May be "one of their greatest b-sides" but can't see any significant coverage or anything to suggest it meets WP:NSONG. The little titbits of information (without the OR) can be included in Cigarettes & Alcohol.--Beloved Freak 11:23, 8 March 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 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cigarettes & Alcohol per BelovedFreak.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Cigarettes & Alcohol. Don't understand why deletion is preferable to merge or redirect for this article. Rlendog (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Zeigler[edit]

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

This actor has had several small roles, not "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows...". See the generally accepted standards on notability for entertainers. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Let his page stay. Some of the roles listed are in supportive roles. Rtkat3 (talk) 6:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Appears to have had a significant (supporting at least) role on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour, but other major roles don't appear on Wikipedia as yet - will research later to see if they are likely notable. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Delete Nothing else with a significant role for him appears to be notable. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:04, 8 March 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 02:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be involved in very small roles (i.e. "additional voices"), and is best known for something so obscure we don't have an article on it. Unlikely this person would have reliable sourcing enough to satisfy our verifiability policy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP Sufficiently notable under WP:GNG. If more strigent guidelines are required for products, then first get consensus to modify the guidelines. It is irrelevant how many products might be notable because this one is not deleted. Mike Cline (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FireworX[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Its only stated reason of notability is having been used by one DJ. This product has made no significant impact on the world of music, it's fancruft of this DJ. Conical Johnson (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources cited at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was just going to let this go, but I stumbled upon a couple of reviews ([59] and [60], the second of which is a lengthy one by Sound on Sound. Wickethewok (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Every single piece of music gear that gets released is reviewed in magazines and websites like SoundOnSound. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is the primary notability criterion... Wickethewok (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there are apparently a lot of print reviews ([61]) in multiple languages - this was released in 1998 after all. Also fwiw, it won a TEC Award ([62]) and a few other awards whose significance I am unsure of. Wickethewok (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:20, 8 March 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 02:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. This might actually be notable, much as I don't like seeing Wikipedia turned into a product guide. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the TEC Award makes it notable. I'm not a subject matter expert on this either, but I don't see what that matters. If anything, its better that way (from a dispassionate !voting standpoint). JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not my subject, but if there are reviews and awards, it's notable DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that makes every single musical device ever created notable enough for its own page. Conical Johnson (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your hypothesis as true for the sake of argument: So? As long as the information is verifiable through reliable third party sources, why would this be a problem? Excluding topics just for the sake of excluding them is pointless. Wickethewok (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd just like to see some guideline for what makes this notable. The info at WP:PRODUCT doesn't really give much guidance about what products are notable. But basically, magazines like Sound on Sound, Guitar World, etc. will by their nature publish an article about any piece of music gear that is produced, regardless of its utility, quality, popularity, impact on the history of music, etc. So any company can be guaranteed that their product will be covered by some similar periodicals or websites merely by creating the product. This seems to clearly fall under the heading of indiscriminate coverage, which we don't allow as proof of notability in other spheres.Conical Johnson (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the article isn't very long, it would be fine if it was merged into the TC Electronic article's "Products" section. It could obviously be expanded to the point where it doesn't fit, but that probably won't happen in the near future. Wickethewok (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebrahim Heshmat[edit]

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

No sources found. Seems to fail notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing. Have you searched for Farsi sources? Ucucha 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending more Farsi to English transl(iter)ated sources are found Right now, there are sources, just not in English. They just need to be utilized. ShawnIsHere (talk) 09:38, 8 March 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 02:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless and until any sources are found (and it is 14 days since this was listed), there is no verifiable evidence of notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability has not been demonstrated; if sources can be found, the article can always be undeleted, but as it is it fails our inclusion guidelines. I note that there's also a copy of this article at Heshmat Taleqani, which appears to be the more accurate name, but has no further evidence of notability - if this is deleted, that one should be as well. It was previously nominated for deletion back in 2006 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taleqani Heshmat), and although it was kept, there were no more sources then than there are now. Robofish (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Taylor Horn. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes (Taylor Horn album)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 1/08. No seconary sources found. <1000 Ghits, released on indie label, no reviews, nothing third party. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Taylor Horn article. There does not appear to be enough notability for the album itself. --JeffJ (talk) 11:25, 14 March 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 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taylor Horn. I'm not seeing enough coverage of this specific album to justify an independent article. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This debate has focused on notability. The consensus is that Tim Masthay is notable, and Cbl62 has provided a number of sources which, taken together, prove that Tim Masthay is notable--because there are reliable sources that have noted him.

WP:ATHLETE has also been raised, but WP:ATHLETE does not supersede the general notability guideline. While I have all due respect for Wikiprojects, project-specific guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE are not permitted to overrule longstanding Wikipedia-wide guidelines. This debate has been open for a long time and it is no longer necessary to prolong it. NAC—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Tim Masthay[edit]

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

This player does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. He has not yet played in a professional game or even been on a team roster during the pre-season games or regular season in the NFL. I initially proded this article, but then I realized it was proded already and deleted last year, but was either recreated or undeleted earlier this year. PackerMania (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted in numerous prior college football discussions, the sole purpose of WP:ATHLETE is to establish an automatic inclusionary rule for players who have reached the highest level of a sport. Masthay's status as an All-SEC award winner, a two-time Academic All-American, a Wuerffel Trophy finalist, a finalist for the NCAA's Walter Byers Postgraduate Scholarship, and a Draddy Trophy semi-finalist go a long way to showing notability. More importantly, college football players qualify under the general notability standard if they have been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. A search of the Newsbank database shows that Masthay has been the subject of a decent amount of media coverage focused on him (i.e., not passing references in game coverage). Examples include: (1) Cats kick up nothing special, UK will miss Masthay on kickoffs this season, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 17, 2009, (2) Masthay always giving back, All-sec UK punter stays active in several charities, Lexington Herald-Leader, December 26, 2008, (3) Six Wildcats named AP All-Southeastern Conference, Lindley, Masthay make first team, The Floyd County Times, December 10, 2008, (4) UK punter Masthay named Academic All-America, The Floyd County Times, November 30, 2008, (5) Masthay earns academic honor, Lexington Herald-Leader, November 27, 2008, (6) Masthay on energy-saving kick, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, September 11, 2008, (7) Masthay giving UK edge in field position, The Messenger (Madisonville, KY), September 11, 2008, (8) Masthay on energy-saving kick Kentucky's kicker/punter conserving strength for games, Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, September 11, 2008, (9) Masthay is formidable, but forgotten secret weapon for Wildcats, The Middlesboro Daily News, September 10, 2008, (10) Tim Masthay has worked hard to get stronger and it's paid off, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 6, 2008, (11) Q&A with Tim Masthay, The Gainesville Sun (FL), September 3, 2008, (12) Special teams look good to Brooks, especially Masthay for kicks and punts, Lexington Herald-Leader, September 1, 2008, (13) African education: UK's punter Masthay discovers value of school for others, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, July 10, 2008, (14) Tamme, Masthay named Academic All-America, The Floyd County Times, December 2, 2007, (15) MASTHAY HOPING EXPERIENCE PAYS OFF, BROOKS SAYS UK PUNTER HAS IMPROVED A LOT RECENTLY, Lexington Herald-Leader, April 22, 2006, (16) UK SEEKS SOMETHING SPECIAL FROM SPECIAL TEAMS, BROOKS TAKES PUNTER MASTHAY UNDER HIS WING, Lexington Herald-Leader, August 24, 2005, (17) MASTHAY'S FOOT IS A SIGHT FOR BLUE EYES, MURRAY ALL-STAR COULD HELP UK, Lexington Herald-Leader, June 16, 2005, (18) Masthay nominated for second national honor, WKYT, Oct 1, 2008, (19) Punter signs with Packers, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 15, 2010, (20) Masthay named first-team Academic All-American, WKYT, Nov 26, 2008, (21) Masthay a Draddy Trophy Semifinalist, Kentucky Sports Report, Oct. 9, 2008, (22) Masthay A Finalist For Wuerffel Trophy, WKYT, Nov 12, 2008, (23) Masthay a Finalist for Byers Scholarship, UK Sports, April 10, 2009, (24) Masthay a candidate for national excellence award, WKYT, Sep 30, 2008. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britton Colquitt you said that "All-SEC award winner goes along way to showing notability." Ok, but this guy has not been All-SEC. So athletics-related academic awards now qualify? Where is the line, or do all college athletes qualify? And if these sources (almost exclusively local pieces) are so relevant, why not add them to the article to improve it and show notability in the article? PackerMania (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masthay has received, or been a finalist for, numerous significant awards and has received extensive media coveage. And he was an All-SEC player. There is no one magic formula for notability. If someone is not notable, based on the objective criteria, I have voted in the past to delete. Masthay is pretty clearly notable. Adding the sources to the article to improve it is a good idea, but the question here is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is a "good" quality article. For now, I'll add the articles to the talk page with an invitation to anyone who has an interest in Masthay or UK athletics to integrate them into the article. Cbl62 (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep I wasn't impressed at first, but there sure seems to be a lot of reliable sources on the player. WOrth at least a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:20, 12 March 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 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still don't see it. If he won one of the national awards or was All-American (making him akin to a WP:ATHLETE #2), fine. All there is is a whole lot of trivial coverage in local papers. And in repsone to Paul McDonald, I kind of see his point, but there is no policy indicating a person is "worth a stub" is there? PackerMania (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response fair question, one deserving a reply! By "worth at stub" I mean that in my view the subject matter has passed the WP:GNG - sometimes called "General Notability Guideline" by wikipedians. It's not a "policy" but I would say that most of notability is not policy-driven and instead is consensus-driven.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cb162's sources. WP:ATHLETE is an additional way to establish notability; failure to pass it does not mean an athlete is not notable. Regardless of whether or not he satisfies WP:ATHLETE, Masthay clearly passes WP:N by a wide margin, which is the dominant relevant policy here. See also the basic notability guidelines for biographies at WP:BASIC. As to the argument that the coverage is local only (which I'm not necessarily convinced of), generally speaking, notability in a local context is still notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragons in games[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO CTJF83 chat 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this material from List of fictional dragons because others had flagged that article as long and unwieldy and suggested splitting it into shorter articles. I do not vouch for the content which I merely moved. On the other hand, it is possible that an orderly list of dragons in games has encyclopedic value for purposes of comparative study. That is certainly one of the values of List of dragons in literature.

Amccune (talk) 06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Because the topic of this list is so broad, it naturally leads to subjects within it that have no encyclopedic relationship with each other. WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO apply here. Them From Space 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As explained above, the list has been split from a larger list. If we decide to keep the information together then this is best reversed by redirection, not deletion as the article's title is a plausible search term. Please see our deletion policy and editing policy in which exploration of such alternatives to deletion is recommended. Deletion is a last resort, not the first option to reach for. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are fine on WP. If a person is interested in this topic the list could be useful. Almost every item has its own article so citing sources in this list should not be needed to establish notability. Any attempt to improve the list by sorting or removing items would involve original research and would be a major waste of time. Better let the dragon fans have their list and others spend their time on other matters. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:10, 10 March 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 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly appropriate list article. If it contains only those relevant to Wikipedia articles it is not indiscriminate, but as discriminating as anything in the encyclopedia. It would not be a directory unless it included every possible one--they two rules are in this case just the same, and the article clearly passes them. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but decrapify The actual concept, a list of games of all times which feature dragons, is a completely understandable and relevant topic for a list. If it didn't exist I'd be inclined to create it. The problem is that either from the start, or somewhere down the line, it has been allowed to degenerate into a totally indiscriminate "there's a dragon, there's a dragon, there's a dragon" indiscriminate silliness. Those who want to know which games are actually focused on dragons are not served by this list, but that can be fixed through editing the article into something meaningful. Dragons appear in fantasy games no less than beefy blokes wearing leather nappies and wielding broadswords, but there are numerous games where dragons really are the main event, many of which doubtless aren't even on this pig's ear. Someone another 00:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures; dragon video games from the top of my head which aren't in the list: Alisia Dragoon, Thanatos, St Dragon, Blazing Dragons and Little Puff in Dragonland. A few minutes rifling through game databases etc. would doubtless produce countless more. The problem here certainly isn't lack of relevant population. Someone another 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dragons in film and television[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO CTJF83 chat 05:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this material from List of fictional dragons because others had flagged that article as long and unwieldy and suggested splitting it into shorter articles. I do not vouch for the content which I merely moved. On the other hand, it is possible that an orderly list of dragons in film/television has encyclopedic value for purposes of comparative study. That is certainly one of the values of List of dragons in literature.

Amccune (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. Because the topic of this list is so broad, it naturally leads to subjects within it that have no encyclopedic relationship with each other. WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO apply here. Them From Space 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As explained above, the list has been split from a larger list. If we decide to keep the information together then this is best reversed by redirection, not deletion as the article's title is a plausible search term. Please see our deletion policy and editing policy in which exploration of such alternatives to deletion is recommended. Deletion is a last resort, not the first option to reach for. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since lists are accepted on WP. There is nothing especially wrong with the list. If a person wanted to learn more about dragons in popular entertainment he/she could wade through it and check out some of the articles. An attempt to "improve" it by limiting it to the more important dragons or those who are featured in more high quality works would involve original research and lead to a lot of waste of time and energy in disputes. Better for those not interested in the topic to ignore it. (Creatures who look like dragons but are not should be removed.)(Most of the entries have their own articles which make it clear that a dragon is involved, so no need for a footnote for each)Steve Dufour (talk) 07:00, 10 March 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 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly appropriate list article. If it contains only those relevant to Wikipedia articles it is not indiscriminate, but as discriminating as anything in the encyclopedia. It would not be a directory unless it included every possible one--they two rules are in this case just the same, and the article clearly passes them. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and render usable by focusing on films and TV shows which strongly feature dragons rather than listing every trivial instance of a dragon character, some of which are so minor they're not even named. Someone another 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Boy (disambiguation)[edit]

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

None of the other links on this page are actually things called "stupid boy." The Gear Daddies track can be hatnoted from the Keith Urban song, and I've found no evidence that the French film has been referred to by the english translation of its name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even after I got rid of two entries, there are still three legit ones left. Variety magazine calls the film Stupid Boy.[63]. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup; the remaining entries do indeed seem to be relevant. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup, it seems that the film has indeed been referred to as Stupid Boy. JIP | Talk 07:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The three terms are relevant enough to justify the DAB (but thank-you, nominator, for nominating this page anyway), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While BLP1E may not technically apply, since she is marginally notable for both her website and giving birth, it seems to be in the spirit of BLP1E if not the letter. It appears that consensus is in favor of deletion on BLP grounds. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (world's heaviest woman to give birth)

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

This article fails both the letter and the spirit of WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid encyclopedia and this woman's notability is transitory. Them From Space 01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--WP is not for single events or for 'news'. Dr Aaij (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a category for people who hold world records. Also, there are lots of articles about super heavy people. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was outdated, I fixed it. She is now, in fact, a Guiness World Record holder. See newer news article. Dream Focus 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#SIDESHOW, which should exist if it doesn't. Thanks for the laugh, Grundle. And it does exist! PhGustaf (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BLP1E - people notable only in the context of one event are not notable, particularly where the person otherwise remains of low profile, and particularly where the event is transitory and has no ongoing consequences or impact. Also per WP:NOTNEWS. I am aware that Wikipedia has other articles on record holders; per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the existence of other articles has no relevance to whether the present article should be kept or deleted.. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She broke a record and is trying to brake another. Rodrigozanatta (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have to say, I don't think "she broke a record" is helpful. I am, as I type this, breaking the world record for most characters typed by a person with the screen name DustFormsWords in reply to a person with the screen name Rodrigozanatta on Wikipedia, and I have hopes to break similar records in the future. It doesn't entitle me to an article. What's relevant in establishing notability is Wikipedia policy, and the relevant ones here as far as I can see are WP:N, WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTNEWS. Would you care to comment on how this article does or does not conform to those policies? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dust, I think you did a great job breaking that record, and I want you to know that I'm on your side in your future efforts. You will go far! Dr Aaij (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

****Comment I broke a record while cleaning the basement. It was an old 78 rpm record made by Louis Armstrong. Should I get a Wikipedia article? Edison (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, good example of a living person known for doing just one thing. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP1E, no matter how weighty that single event was. Ray^Talk 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - she is a guinness world record holder. as long as she holds the record, i would think she warrants a page of her own. if this is the only thing she ever achieves, add her page and any pertinent information to the fattest woman to give birth page... or whatever else links to it... i often use wikipedia to double-check news stories. so at this point, the page is useful. as i said, if she achieves nothing else, and someone surpasses her, link to a larger, more relevant entry. - XKGBX

I'd strongly recommend you don't use Wikipedia to check news stories, for exactly this reason. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news site, record book, directory, or any of a range of other things. We don't decide whether things get a page by whether they're "useful"; we decide them on the basis of policy agreed to by the editing community, and as far as I'm aware the relevant policies here are WP:N, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If you don't agree with those policies you are welcome to go to the relevant pages and argue they should be changed, but that's not something that it's usually effective to do through a deletion debate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is now. One of the news articles mentions she has been awarded it now. Dream Focus 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, famous for one event only. JIP | Talk 07:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, and serves no useful contribution to society (and by extension, Wikipedia). PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedia articles don't serve any useful contribution to society. That is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The delete votes are unduly swayed by this being a recent press story, and because its about someone who is super fat trying to be even more fat. Maybe she's not as famous yet as Robert Earl Hughes, but the she has been the subject of significant press coverage and has a world record. I am not aware of WP:BLP1E being construed to advocate for the deletion of people known for holding a single world record.--Milowent (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a pretty much classic case of WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOTNEWS and BLP1E. If she actually stays in the news for trying to gain the weight or actually becomes the fattest person, maybe, but until then, I don't see how she meets the standard. MBisanz ^talk 14:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, she's "already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom."[64]. No one seems to be considering how BLP1E applies to world record holders (assuming the holder has press coverage), as we already have tons of articles on similar people, and they are not treated as BLP1Es. e.g., Jyoti Amge (shortest girl), Sandy Allen (tallest woman), Yao Defen (tallest woman since 2008), Jon Brower Minnoch (heaviest man), Mills Darden (heaviest man), Carol Yager (heavy woman), etc. (there are 100s).--Milowent (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you brough those articles to AfD there's a good chance I'd argue many should be deleted, but that's not the discussion we're having today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, otherstuffexists weighs in my favor, i.e., "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." These other articles have lasted for many years without debate. Its not dispositive, but its worth considering.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Tons of articles", now that's funny! As Milowent points out, "one event" wouldn't apply. WP:NOTNEWS is always a judgment call, particularly since she made the news again only yesterday. I guess that it's theoretically possible that we will never ever hear again about Donna Simpson after she's made national news on her sad quest to become the world's heaviest woman, that she will never be a guest on talk shows, morning news programs, or shows like Dateline or 20/20; and it's theoretically possible that she'll never be profiled in People, Us, the National Enquirer; and possible that she will never be mentioned by commentators on other programs; and it's theoretically possible that she'll never be referred to in the foreign press as an example of American excess, or that she'll never be mentioned in books. It's theoretically possible that she will never be seen or heard from again, but highly unlikely. Not everything that makes news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfect WP:BLP1E, and lacking significant coverage to overrule that. Grsz¹¹ 14:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, there's a chance that she will become notable in the future. At this point though, she still falls under WP:BLP1E. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. One news story does not notability make. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a news item / single event. Note to all those claiming notability by being a Guinness World Record Holder, she is not a Guinness World Record Holder. As per this article in the NY Post, she has submitted paperwork to Guiness to have her named as "biggest to give birth and heaviest living woman." There is currently no category for biggest birth mom. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that, as other reliable sources have claimed (apparently wrongly) that "Simpson is already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom."[65]--Milowent (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect this got picked up off newswire services with little additional fact checking going on in the story. What really surprises me is that the correction came from the NY Post, which in its current incarnation is not exactly a bastion of fact checking. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that as well. If the National Enquirer can do it, I guess the NYPost can too.--Milowent (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Newer news articles have updated information, she in fact has now achieved that World Record. Dream Focus 11:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another textbook case of BLP1E; a flash-in-the-pan non-celebrity trying to drum up publicity for her fetish pay site. Fran Rogers ❇ 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some may argue that Donna Simpson's ambition to becom the world's fatest women is esoteric and attention seeking akin to that of a tabloid. However, who are we to decide what merits a valid ambition over another? If she is 'in actuality' a record holder, that is an absolute extreme of the human race (obtained by only one), this is what record holders do, they present that line which seperates reality from fantasy (and we can learn from such). and if a world record should remain un-apealing to the masses, that is only a reflection of our psychology not an absolute truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.34.186 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical speculation as to the nature of truth is great, but the place for it is in policy review. Notability isn't judged by reference to the line that separates reality from fantasy or reflections of our psychology, it's judged by the community-agreed policy on general notability, and the supporting policies which include WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. If you could address your comments to (a) what you believe the relevant Wikipedia policies are for this article, and (b) whether or not this article meets them, it would help us better understand your position. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mr. IP editor makes a valid point despite not being couched in WP:isms. Donna is headed to the dustbin, it appears, but Mr. IP seems to be suggesting that there is a value judgment here informing the delete votes.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair interpretation of the comment, I guess. I'd point out though that all but two of the Delete votes have made a clear reference to policy (and one of those that didn't, PhGustaf, was being humorous), while none of the Keep votes except yourself (Milowent) and Mandsford have explained how policy might support a keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In close cases, what policy means often comes down to whatever 10 random keeps and deletes say. (An example I noted offwiki:[66]).--Milowent (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your point in principle - that sometimes AfDs have the wrong outcome - but not in practice. Your example is very clearly a delete case per WP:EVENT. Three of the four keep votes are bogus, and and I can only assume the closing admin noted that when he rightfully closed it as delete. In that particular case the system worked. (I'm actually interested in this dicussion but it will probably be increasingly less and less relevant to the AfD at hand. Would you like to continue it on my talk page?) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic discussion continues at User talk:DustFormsWords#General AfD discussion, continued from Donna Simpson AfD.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - her pursuit of 1000 lbs has her in the news often enough to make her a significant person and to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.249.213 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Objects of lurid fascination may be notable enough for an article, if the fascination is lasting. In this case, we have a flurry of coverage in the space of a few weeks, which is not an indication of any long-term interest. --RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- The way I see BLP1E is that you have to distinguish (at least to some extent) between people that the event merely happens to, and people who bring it about through their own actions. Let's say I make the news for a long period of time because my house gets blown up. If it was blown up through no fault or action of my own then, even though the event may be deemed to be worth an article, I would not. But if I am responsible for blowing my own house up either on purpose or through horrendous stupidity, then the event would best be covered as an article on me. Now, since Donna Simpson is deliberately trying to bulk up to gain some kind of (IMO repulsive) world record, I don't feel BLP1E should be the deciding factor. That leaves the question of whether all this news coverage is enough to warrant an article. In my opinion, just barely. Reyk _YO! 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to this passage of WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." You also need to take into account that notability is not temporary. "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E). For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." Critical factors are whether the event the person is famous for had national impact or ongoing consequences, and whether or not the person is likely to remain of otherwise low profile. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say little Donna is low-profile?--Milowent (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as others have noted, per WP:ONEEVENT. Tarc (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E, notability, what ^---- said. Q ^{T C} 04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for so many reasons I can't even list them. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is outdated. She has been given the Guinness award, and having a notable award, makes you notable. Its a notable accomplishment, being the fattest woman to ever give birth. The second reference in the article has a news article that says this:

"Simpson is already in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the largest mom. It took 30 hospital staff to deliver her daughter in a high-risk cesarean in 2007. At the time she weighed about 530 pounds. (She has other children.)"

Dream Focus 15:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - The Guinness Book of World Records is a notable book of records but notability is not inherited. No sources have been provided demonstrating that the particular awards won by Ms Simpson are notable. Can anyone point to a critical analysis of these awards, or discussion of their history and pedigree, or speculation as to who will be the next record-holder? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Enough said. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pmlineditor Chzz ► 16:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 17:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates Wikipedia policy per most of the debate above. Carlosporras14 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is a good read and a good point of what overeating can do!! This lady is more of a science project we will she what happens to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.135.251 (talk • contribs)

Its always interesting to me to see what articles will interest a casual IP user to contribute to a deletion discussion. Unfortunately their opinions seem to get discounted, even though they likely are far more representative of the average reader's view of what should on Wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosporras14 has only one edit ever outside this AFD. Be they registered or an IP address, it doesn't really matter, since registering is something anyone can do, it taking but a few seconds. And AFD are decided by the context of the arguments, not in votes, so it doesn't really matter. Dream Focus 11:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has Wikipedia become the NYT of reference: all the celebrity that's fit to print? An encyclopedia caters to one universal trait: curiosity. And Donna Simpson is very curious indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.16.200 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she is the heaviest woman in the world to give birth to a child is a fact worthy of encyclopedic reference, regardless of any rules or other thoughts on the subject. Those types of human limits are noteworthy knowledge, medically and scientifically speaking. It is in the same realm as the shortest adult in the world, or the smallest human to give birth, etc. It is much more important knowledge than the man with the longest fingernails, which has been in the Guiness Book of World Records since my 1972 edition. Without such knowledge, people are hindered in their medical understandings and scientific knowledge of the human body and it's various limitations and capacities. For example, supposing I was 250kg, and everyone told me that I was too fat to have a child: this kind of knowledge allows me to know that it has been done before, and it is possible. It is not useless and irrelevant knowledge for an encyclopedia. People that want this article removed have clouded judgment due to their hateful and spiteful resentment against this woman because she is fat. It's that simple, regardless of the attorney-speak behind the rebuttals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.188.15 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Maw[edit]

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

Child actor who seems to have received no press attention for his role in Tracy Beaker Returns. Does not appear to be notable, no reliable, third party sources cited or found. J Milburn (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Has only appeared in a very small number of episodes of a single television series. anemoneprojectors talk 00:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Highway 401 (Ontario) (action already taken). (non admin closure) Jeni ^(talk) 09:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have incorporated this list back into Highway 401 as part of an upcoming featured article process. This article was split several years ago. It is poorly sourced and no longer necessary with the list being on the 401 article. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not necessary. --Rs chen 7754 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Highway 401 due to (a) the information already being present in that article, and (b) no evidence of the notability of the majority of this information. I note the last AfD was a no-consensus keep, with a leaning towards merging, which appears to have now happened. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as unnecessary post-merge. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot I could just do this myself. The way I figured, this is an unlikely search title, but it's long existance means that several articles on the internet likely link to it. Can I suggest redirecting this to the Exit list section of Highway 401? Also, the main argument at previous afd's was the unruly length of the list. I've cut so much speculation and OR out of the article that adding the massive list back to the article doesn't change the size of it![67] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The exits can be covered in the Highway 401 article as with every other road article. ---Dough 48 72 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a ((R from merge)) since the edit history is supposed to be available. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Floydian has a good point; while this shouldn't be a separate article, it's somewhat likely to be a search target. Redirects are cheap. Nyttend (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to be bold and do it. The direction of this is pretty obvious, and it can always be overturned by the results of this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly doing it would have been a good plan before the AfD; now that we're at AfD policy suggests you should leave it alone until the discussion's closed. However I'd support an early close if you're able to get an admin to stop by and look the AfD over. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters#Rowley Jefferson. JohnCD (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rowley Jefferson[edit]

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

This is an article consisting purely of WP:FANCRUFT; this character shows no real-world impact, nor does he have reception in multiple, reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series). Article fails WP:N. Good faith searches return plenty of forum/fan discussion of this character but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge or redirect, but not delete. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that there is any verifiable, sourced information to merge. As it stands now, the bulk of it is original research. However, multiple people insist on keeping it instead of redirecting it. I would be fine with a redirect, but apparently some are not. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Multiple people" are free to provide their arguments for maintaining it as a standalone article, and/or some reliable sources establishing notability at this AfD, as is everyone else. Or for that matter, on the article's talk page, which as of this writing is completely blank. That would have been the appropriate place to discuss a merge prior to AfD but I guess we can deal with it here now. Actually, I've just noticed some interested parties haven't been notified of this AfD - I'll go fix that now. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears none of the contributors to this article other than the creator were notified of this AfD. I have hopefully now rectified that by notifying all substantial contributing accounts. I will also place a notice on the talk main page for Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an interested party; I made it into a redirect when I first saw it. Please be more careful next time you template people. DS (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As someone who had previously argued the article should be a redirect, you may potentially have been someone interested in that same debate happening here. I would assume people would want to be over-warned of debates potentially of interest to them, rather than underwarned. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to ~~Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series)~~ List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters ~~as a last resort,~~ do not delete. It is interesting to note there have been multiple attempts to redirect this that have been reversed by those who have been trying to build it. Dlohcierekim 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, none of the "building" has brought it any closer to meeting Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article. See WP:WAF and WP:NOTE. An article on a fictional character must discuss it from a real-world context, and have multiple references demonstrating notability. Every character article that survives long-term has a good reception section that discusses the cultural impact of the character. The article as it is now is not encyclopedic, and it does not appear that there are enough reliable sources discussing the character in-depth to make it acceptable by notability standards. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have attributed two sentences that have real world significance. It's hard going. ~~I have also removed what looks like a copy vio. See hidden text for now to see source inf~~ It is regrettable, that with all the reverting and adding of unsourced material that no one took the time to source this. Dlohcierekim 04:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added what I could source to ~~Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series)~~ List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. So I suppose the "merge" is done. I could say he serves as a foil for the main character, but that would require OR and Synthesis. The rest is OR and synthesis. I haven't looked for any copyvio's but I removed the one I stumbled into. Redirect seems the way to go. Dlohcierekim 04:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to section on List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. The character is not independently notable; the redirect should be protected in the event that someone turns it back into a separate article. Neelix (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere's a problem with the "list of" article.It too is unreferenced and full of OR and Synthesis. Dlohcierekim 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I don't think that changes what needs to be done with this page. Neelix (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tru, but we're redirecting to apge that's as big a mess as this is. <sigh /> Dlohcierekim 01:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 02:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rowley's section in List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters. This article tries to make too much out of too little (meaning that there isn't enough in the Wimpy Kid series to write a proper article on Rowley. Letsy2 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with much of you. Greg Heffley was redirected, so this should be, too. 209.175.117.2 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and BTW, the ref's aren't reliable. 209.175.117.2 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Diary of a Wimpy Kid characters#Rowley Jefferson. Can someone redirect, delete, or do anything else already? Somebody500 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dai[edit]

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

Declined speedy - While it sounds like the subject of this article has a borderline (at best) claim of notability per WP:BIO, the article is unsourced and I cannot find anything to verify the notability claims Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:BIO. He's notable because he works somewhere? Sometimes I wish WP:N wasn't so broad. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the speedy not 'because he works somewhere', but because it makes this claim to notability: he has received recognition and ranking in various public polls including Asiamoney and Institutional Investors. I also noted that there were references both at Google News as 'Dave Dai' and at Google News Archive as 'Dave Dai' as well as under '戴维'. However, all of these appear to be basically saying "Dave Dai, a spokesman for CLSA, said..." (As I can't read Chinese, I can't verify the Chinese-language ones, but the few I Google Translated seemed to be the same) However, '戴维' appears to be just 'David', it seems from one of the Google News results that '戴大卫' would be David Dai, so I would appreciate any comment from a Chinese-reading editor. As it stands, with no evidence found of any awards from AsiaMoney Magazine (no mentions at asiamoney.com), and 'Institutional Investors' I assume to be Institutional Investor Magazine, whose website iimagazine.com makes no mention of him. With no significant coverage of him as an individual, and no evidence of any recognition/awards, I feel that this article should be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that came out wrong. I wasn't trying to insult you. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't take it as an insult! Also, Boing (below): that was my thought initially, but as AsiaMoney is a magazine, I thought II might be too. If it isn't, then there is even less chance of it being a notable award or anything like that! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: "Institutional investors" is a generic term meaning institutions that invest - investment banks, funds, insurance companies, etc, so it could be referring to anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Voice (Brooke Hogan album)[edit]

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

Delete. Unreleased albums require substantial independent sources. This does not have that, thereby failing the requirements of WP:NALBUMS Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know where that track listing came from, because I can't find it anywhere. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know about a need for "substantial independent sources", whatever that means, but some independent sources are needed, and I don't see any here. Rlendog (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this unreleased album; it appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Southern_Border_(California)#Cities. Delete and keep !votes are fairly even, while there is a move toward merging with the parent article. Having looked at the article and the parent article, this list duplicate the information in the parent article, so a merge/redirect does seem appropriate. See Wikipedia:Summary style for advice on when to splut out a standalone article from a parent. SilkTork *^YES! 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities in the Southern Border[edit]

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

Per WP:MILL; similar to like Aardvarks by the name of George with brown hair living in Windy County, Oklahoma that resemble anteaters. mono (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Southern Border is a major region of Southern California, like the Greater Los Angeles Area or the Inland Empire. It is the largest, in terms of economic diversity, region of the State of California. So i created a list of it's largest cities. Hardly anything like Aardvarks by the name of George with brown hair living in Windy County, Oklahoma that resemble anteaters. SoCal L.A. (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If this gets deleted so should Largest cities in Southern California.House1090 (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LIST. It has a clearly defined scope ("the 25 largest cities in the Southern Border by population"), it's verifiable, it's closely related to an article (Southern Border), and it's sourced and well presented. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't at all a violation of our list standards, since it defines the number of cities and relies on an official definition of Southern Border. By the way, there is no Windy County, Oklahoma. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gimme a break, this already part of Southern Border and there's no need for its own special article. "Southern Border" sounds really impressive, and the article's author assumes that everybody knows what it is, but this is basically "Largest cities in San Diego County and Imperial County, California". And if you want to know what the largest cities are in San Diego County and Imperial County, California, there's an article called "Southern Border" that includes that information. Somebody thoughtfully wrote that information-- so that you and I don't have to. Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJust pointing out that i wrote both articles :). SoCal L.A. (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Southern Border and any subsidiary articles like this should be moved to less ambiguous titles like Southern Border (California). It may surprise some editors, but numerous other states and nations also have southern borders. It is a bit arrogant to assume that the southern border of one U.S. state is so well known as such that no disambiguating information is needed. I am a U.S. resident and I have been to said southern border of California, but have never heard the term used in such a linguistic monopoly. A Google Book search shows no dominance of California in use of the term "Southern Border" over the borders of other states and countries. Edison (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i moved the article to Largest cities in the Southern Border (California) since your reasoning makes sense. SoCal L.A. (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Southern Border, rename that article to Southern Border (California). I concur with Edison about the rename, and like Mandsford I am unclear about the need for this separate list article. Why not just replace the list of cities now included at Southern Border with this nicer-looking, and slightly more detailed, list? I am open to re-evaluating my opinion if someone will articulate a good reason for a separate article for the list. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care if you keep the list as a separate list or merge it (there's been a great proliferation of catchall articles lately about various portions of southern California, but I think they are - as Douglas Addams would say - mostly harmless). But do I agree with the comment that "Southern Border" should always be rendered as "Southern Border (California)". I live in San Diego and I was unfamiliar with the term, so I certainly don't expect anyone from outside the area to know what it is referring to. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I'm behind the times; I see that the renaming process is already under way. Good work, SoCal L.A. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is the southern border of California more special than that of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona? 69.242.59.114 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the above unsigned vote. Thunderbunny (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is a comparison that someone made just out of the blue. Dew Kane (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI didn't see how WP:NOTCASE applies. Are there criteria for the size or importance of a region that I don't know about? Pirate^Argh!!1! 02:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dew Kane, you're misinterpretating WP:NOTCASE. That policy is saying that the existence of an article entitled "Oak trees in California" does not entitle you to write an article about particular oak trees in California, as Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies. However, what you're probably trying to say is that this is an unlikely concatenation of subjects as explained by WP:OVERCAT (which only applies to categories) or WP:OLIST (an essay, not a guideline). Neither of those are relevant here as an understanding of the relative size of cities in a defined and notable area of America is clearly relevant and helpful to an understanding of that area. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be that considering the Southern Border a real region and having an article and related sub-articles is against some policy or a bad idea, regardless, no one has shown that except to say "I haven't heard about it", which isn't an argument. Try deleting Pikachu with that rationale. Regardless, perhaps the Souther Border article should be reduced to some brief text and ((main|this topic in San Diego county)). But this isn't the place to make that kind of decision. I've started that discussion on Talk:Southern_Border_(California) Pirate^Argh!!1! 02:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Southern Border (California). It's just a content fork. 22 of the 25 cities are already listed there (albeit some of them list different populations, which is odd considering they claim to be using the same reference as their source). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I didn't vote before but I will now: this article has no reason for existence. It is totally duplicated at Southern Border (California) - itself an article with some question as to its notability (see Talk:Southern Border (California)). ==14:41, 23 March 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.