< 29 May	31 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let me know if anyone wnats the content for a merge. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard films on television[edit]

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

The article covers how the films were altered to be shown to television audiences. This appears trivial to indicate how vulgar language is censored and violence is cut back to meet television viewing requirements. This article could spawn similar articles for other film franchises, which seems unnecessary as many films are altered in some way when shown on television (especially if it differs by network, time of day, or by country). If there is significant differences that are notable for a film altered to be shown in other mediums, then it can be briefly covered in a single section within the film article(s). I would recommend any notable differences be incorporated into the Die Hard (franchise) article. Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Die Hard (franchise). Unnecessary content fork. Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very pointless trivia of random differences in the various films broadcast - all films are modified for broadcast for varous reason and there is nothing at all noteworthy about it unless such alterations actually have significant coverage. Like most, these do not and Wikipedia does not need to host such an unnotable bit of trivia -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above. Note that the same thing happened to Rambo films on television, James Bond films on television and other similar articles. Films are edited/formatted for TV for many reasons, this is just unnecessary, unsourceable trivia (IMDB and some blogs are not reliable sources).--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a trivia list. If there was anything specifically out of the ordinary about the editting for televiosn, the a merge would be appropriate, but I don't see that here. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azmyth[edit]

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

Deleted A7, which was overturned by DRV, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band after looking over google and Gnews search results. As S Marshall said in the DRV, the "article is sourced mainly to myspace, facebook, blogs and youtube". Further, I can't find any evidence to substantiate the claim of fulfilling other criteria in WP:BAND made in the DRV. Tim Song (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not speedy though). I have the same sourcing issue Tim Song has, and the article reads like a big PR announcement. Also, unless I missed it, it doesn't appear that the band has released any albums. Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has released multiple albums. They have been circulated independently. However the albums are not notable enough to put on wikipedia. They meet at least two of the requirements for notability, and have worked with many notable people. The band is also one of the most notable from Ocala, Fl. Being noted as the next big band from Ocala, Fl. Orange Springs, Fl is just where they originated from. You can see that in a few of the references.--Nascarman456 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Nascarman456— Nascarman456 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep The article is now more notably sourced. The band itself indeed meets requirements for notability. This band is releasing a CD in June also. I think they finance everything themselves, so it is low budget, not getting a lot of media attention, but the band has gained quite a bit of popularity. The band themselves do get quite a bit of media attention around the state of Florida, and surrounding states.--Positiveoutlook5 (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)— Positiveoutlook5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of those new sources even mention the band's name (yes, I looked through all of them). And you "think" the band finances everything themselves? How do you know? I think you should read WP:BAND. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorting through the mess of sourcing to look at only the ones from reliable sources, what I gather is that this band has had some local success in "battle of the bands" type competitions and may be the next big thing to come out of the area. When they do become that big thing, then would be the time for an article. At this time some minor local coverage doesn't really establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i see no real notability here, the sourcing despite initial appearences is lacking and nothing else satisfies wp:music. looks like spam duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the band satisfies WP:BAND. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the coverage in independent reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fama's Nursery & Landscaping[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This AfD was closed procedurally, as it was nominated by a likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. I am re-nominating, as I think it fails the criteria for inclusion. The article fails WP:N, as it is one of New Jersey's oldest retail nurseries, but not the oldest. This seems to be a particularly thin claim to notability. mono 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit thin on notability, doesn't it? Also, "In 1992 he was named Man of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce of Somerset, New Jersey after he created a park dedicated to Guglielmo Marconi at the site of the New Brunswick Marconi Station" is completely irrelevant to the article, as it has nothing to do with the landscaping business as far as I can tell. Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment: Parks are wontedly landscaped. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and surely if the notability of the business rested on having done landscaping for that park, it should be explicitly mentioned in the article. For broader or deeper articles on landscaping and plant nurseries (i.e. umbrella associations or older nurseries and companies), see Teufel Nursery, British Columbia Landscape & Nursery Association, Späth nursery, Moon Nurseries, European Landscape Contractors Association, Veitch Nurseries, Savenac Nursery Historic District. For something of a comparable age to the company mentioned in this article, see Frank's Nursery & Crafts or Aubin Nurseries. It seems that in the overall history of plant nurseries and landscaping design, this company is relatively minor and there are other articles that could be written or expanded far more easily than this one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they were the first to use leafblowers or something. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or they invented the rake!^{[citation needed]} mono 03:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it they say about sarcasm and wit? I was trying to be serious here and give examples of the type of articles we have on this topic, and the responses are humourous/sarcastic speculations about what they might have been the first to use? The GNG (general notability guideline) is great as far as it goes, but I do think considering what specifically makes specialised topics notable is something that can be usefully done without sarcasm, even in the absence of a specific notability guideline. So the question I was trying to answer was: what makes a nursery and landscaping business probably notable? My view is that prime considerations are age (founded early 20th century or earlier), size (turnover and number of outlets), and reach (national and international bodies especially, but only rarely local institutions). But those are probably mentioned in the GNG already. Those characteristics are what usually causes multiple references in independent and reliable sources (even if not online), and I don't see that here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage (in pith, not breadth) yields notability. Meanwhile I think your input on this has been helpful and is more than welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see extensive third party coverage for this. gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no significant coverage in germane reliable sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 08:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The assertion of notability is that it is one of the oldest nurseries. This isn't unique or particularly notable. AniMate 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PFC Stefan's town[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PFC Stefan's town

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

This article purports to be about a Bulgarian football team, but no sources are provided, nor can I find any Google hits for this team name outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. It doesn't even appear that we have an article about the league this team allegedly plays in. Unless and until reliable independent sources confirm the existence of this club, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If its existence is verified, we can then deal with the question of whether it is notable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - almost certainly something that someone made up one day. Nothing relevant comes up through Bulgarian Google - [1], and the article on one of the players (Stefan Chichovarov) says that he's 15 years old. Claritas § 09:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definite hoax. Giant Snowman 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear hoax, 'nuff said. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StingRay Manufacturing[edit]

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

Despite this article having a few refs, none of them actually assert that the company is notable. The press-release is actually self published through one of the free press release websites. Wizard191 (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this company in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any sources for notability according to WP:ORG. Dewritech (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StingRay Manufacturing is notable. While it is a new corporation it is important to note that is evolved from The MART Corporation as stated in the article. MART is the inventor of the power wash process that was instrumental in eliminating the use of Tri Clor in cleaning. This article published by Turi.org explains: www.turi.org/content/download/3549/43887/file/techreport22.pdf Since MART has gone out of business it is significant to note that the developers of the original technology have moved to a new product name and that the same technology continues to be developed and refined. One of the engineers, Marc Treppler, at StingRay has numerous patents relating to parts washer technology. www.patentuniverse.com/US5782252.html www.patentuniverse.com/US5971063.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupler (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure the company and its products are important to its customers, but it fails the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Google news provides zero hits about this company. LinkedIn [2] informs me that it's a privately held company, founded in 2009, with 24 employees. References at the article are self-referential or otherwise not WP:RS reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of country coats of arms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While many of these files are PD, some are still copyrighted. Commons is an entirely encyclopedic place to put galleries, Wikipedia is not a repository of media files. Another issue is how to deal with claiming fair use for these images--there's no text in which they are discussed, the only thing that remotely makes fair use acceptable here is the title of the page. Looking at the history, quite a few images have already been removed, so I'm not sure what the point of having an incomplete list would look like--Gallery of country coats of arms in the public domain? Lastly, if this is determined to be a keep, I propose renaming it back to Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms (see first AfD) because our list of countries is actually a list of sovereign states, which does include Taiwan, Kosovo, etc. as de facto sovereign states, and under whose criteria for inclusion this gallery should be based on as well. (This does not address the issue of there being historic coats of arms not officially used today, and being excluded from this list, however.) So I'm in favor first of a transwiki free sections to Commons/delete and if kept, a rename. —fetch ·comms 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Gallery of coats of arms of dependent territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—fetch ·comms 00:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominations seems to be asking fora revision of the article,not a deletion of it. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD was a rename, but that was under a different title. The first for this was solving a histmerge issue, the second a deletion. My nomination is for a delete, but if kept, I'm also proposing a rename, to be more efficient. —fetch ·comms 18:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to "List of...". The content is an encyclopedic staple. See List of Canadian flags for a model, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian flags for a recent comparable AfD. Ty 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable resource - rename as a list perhaps...Modernist (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This type of article is standard in print encyclopedias. Edward321 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom and the United Nations[edit]

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

This near-unreferenced page contains only general information about the history and structure of the UN, nothing to flesh out an article at all. The first section contains two sentences about the UK being a founding UN member (already covered, much better-ly, in History of the United Nations); the second section simply notes the fact that Britain has a veto power (again, covered in greater depth and more encyclopedically in United Nations Security Council veto power etc.) ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually a worthwhile topic and could cover the UK's support and sometimes disagreements with the UN. The same kind of articles could be written about other major nations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can only hope that, as a matter of British pride, somebody rescues this article that seems to have been started and never finished. At current, it implies that the United Kingdom has not really done anything of importance within the U.N. since 1956. In that regard, it's rather misleading, so I wouldn't mind terribly if it were to be deleted. On the other hand, like Kitfoxxe, I think it was a good idea for a topic (for U.N. purposes, I'd consider the most important nations to be the five permanent members of the Security Council), and I have my doubts that it would be recreated any time soon. Mandsford 02:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion. I'm sure there is plenty to say. --Pnm (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of you planning to rewrite it, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having looked at India and the United Nations, that's convinced me there is more than enough material out there for a stand-alone article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of you planning to rewrite it, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 10:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's normal to keep a stub if it's clear a full article could be created from it. The only other alternative would be to merge all country-UN relation pages into one page and split off full articles as and when individuals get too large for an individual entry, but that would be a complicated merger discussion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to TreasuryTag's question, no, I myself am not planning to rewrite the article, hence I did not vote to keep. In my experience, AfD actually is for cleanup when something requires the work of many hands. Nobody rushes to rescue a damsel who has no clue that she is in distress. There need not be a dragon; sometimes the only rescue needed is to prevent the damsel and her escort from further making total fools of themselves in public. I'm an American, and although I could do an excellent job in finding sources to demonstrate that the UK has indeed done things of note in the last 64 years of world history, I would yield to a Briton who wanted to accomplish the same task and who could write with a perspective that I do not have. For me, it would not be an honor, much less an honour, but rather an act of mercy. I suspect that the article would probably survive the first nomination for deletion even if not cleaned up; on the other hand, if there is still no interest taken in it by the time of the second nomination, I think that people would be happy to remove this article. Mandsford 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. If the article seems unfinished then it is our editing policy to leave it in article space for readers to find and improve. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems to be fairly important. As another American I can assure you that "The United States and the United Nations" is a topic of major importance for both sides. I don't know if it has an article here but it should have. I wouldn't have a problem with 200 (or so) articles on each nation's relationship to the UN. Deleting this one would be a step back, not a step forward. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's an excellent source from the United Nations to refer to, concerning all the vetoes that had been cast by the five Security Council members during the first 58 years of the U.N.'s existence. Unfortunately, it's sideways [3] but it's a starting point for anyone who wants to learn specific matters where the U.K. has intervened. Mandsford 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with its veto power, UK is one of the most important member states of the UN. I'd have a problem, contra Steve Dufour, with every such relationship having its own article, but certainly this is one of perhaps two dozen that really must be in a complete online encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click Google news and it says Results 1 - 10 of about 41,000 for "United Kingdom and the United Nations". LOL! A notable relationship I'd say. Dream Focus 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Akirn (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upstate Connecticut[edit]

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

Article is about a geographic term that does not appear to exist. Contrary to the lead sentence that states "Upstate Connecticut is a term commonly used to refer to Connecticut's rural northern counties," the use of this term appears to be limited to Wikipedia, a fictional movie, a few random statements on webpages (mostly non-RS).
In August 2009, I added the notability template to the article, with the note "I don't see evidence that this terminology is truly established by a reliable source." Subsequently, a map that was formerly in the article was removed with the edit summary "Map is not based on fact, rather personal opinion", and there has been some discussion on the talk page, but no one has supplied nontrivial sources to substantiate the use of the term. The term gets a lot of ghits, but most are links to the plot or reviews of the movie The Haunting in Connecticut, which seems to be the source of this term.
It's high time to remove the article, before this term enters common usage because people believe the Wikipedia article. Orlady (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.
Delete Because Connecticut's longest axis is east-west, and the state is pretty small, it's highly unlikey that "Upstate Connecticut" would develop as a geographic term. Its width north to south is only about 50 miles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really in common use locally. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in common use and doesn't geographically make sense. I'm sympathetic to articles that need to be improved but the underlying subject is problematic here.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term is not widely used, if it is even used at all. I have certainly never heard of this alleged and poorly defined region of the state until now. Also, for an article that is only two paragraphs long, it fails to definitively identify the exact boundaries of this purported region and leaves much to readers’ interpretations. It uses phrases such as "This usually includes ...," "On occasion ...," "sometimes," and "In popular culture ..." to try to identify speculative boundary extensions under certain situations, further aiding in confusion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This term is something someone made up one day. I grew up on the CT border with MA and have not once, never, heard anyone refer to the region as "upstate CT." Furthermore, there are very few reliable sources that substantiate this non-existant geographical definition. BWH76 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have lived in southwestern CT my entire life and not once heard this term in the news, publications or in passing. It strikes me as an attempt to match some other more legitimate regional terms like "Gold Coast" or "Tri-State Area". If the term was identified as realistic I would happily lend my support to develop it. dtgriffith (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clearly a term that is in widespread use. The fact that it may have started off as a neologism doesn't discount the fact that it can also be a definitive concept. I mean, you have Reaganism, McCarthyism, Bushism, Clintonism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. Notable and powerful leaders often derive their 'ism'. And it isn't always complementary.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putinism[edit]

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

WP:Neologism. The term Putinism has been used as a neologism for the rule of Vladimir Putin, mostly in a derogatory way, but does not justify its own article. Most of the article is hostile criticism about Putin drawn from editorials and US conservative think tanks. TFD (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.... Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history....Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term....[4] TFD (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... In politics and history you are going to run into a lot of hostile critism, however "Putinism" does seem like a notable expression and it certainly is a real thing, good or bad, since he is a strong leader with definate views and policies. What is not right is to write a history of modern Russia (slanted towards criticism or not) under the title "Putinism." That title should be reserved for a neutral description of his policies and goals, referenced to good sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable term. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Repeatedly used in NYT [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] which make a strong case for it being a term in common use. WSJ [10] and so on. And the use is from liberals as well as conservatives. Guardian [11] [12] [13] etc. Unless, of course, one claims the Guardian is a bastion of the right wing. Sorry - clear Keep here. Should be a "white night" one, in fact. Collect (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. 1) "Putinism" as some form of political theory or ideology is nonexistent thing. Putin never coherently described his ideas or goals. (WP:NOTCRYSTAL) 2) "Putinism" as political events and practices of "Putin era" (2000-2010) is real. But for most meaningful sections of this article e.g. "FSB influence", "Rising living standards", "Cronyism and corruption" there are more relevant articles (FSB, Economy of Russia, Corruption in Russia, Politics of Russia) and there is no need to gather all this unrelated things under vaguely defined umbrella term. 3) "Putinism" is inherently non-NPOV term (resembles Stalinism and Nazism). This article has too much WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT issues and is not salvageable. DonaldDuck (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTCRYSTAL is irrelevant, nobody is trying to predict the future. And Putin does not need to have described 'Putinism' for it to be a notable topic as defined by coverage in reliable sources. As for 'Putinism' being pejorative: 1. You just triggered Godwin's Law. 2. "Isms" are not all pejorative, e.g. Thatcherism and Blairism. Fences&Windows 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Descriptions of "Putinism" by various analysts and political commentators are unverifiable, because Putin never coherently described "Putinism" himself. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. DonaldDuck (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article may have OR, SYNTH, and WEIGHT issues, but the term does appear to be notable. If we wish, we could stubify the article, and let someone expand it later in a way more fitting of a Wikipedia article. Buddy431 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Russian sources discuss in detail what Putinism is, so it is neither just a neologism nor a term used due to foreign bias:[14][15][16] Whole books have been written about it[17] and it has been discussed in numerous scholarly sources:[18]. Fences&Windows 19:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fences, some of your sources define Putinism as a type of socialism, while another source defines it as the "highest stage of robber capitalism". Can you please tell us which one it is, and also why you think that this is the same thing? Can we write an article about something described both as socialism or capitalism, or is it a neologism? TFD (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources disagreeing in their interpretations of a topic is hardly a reason to delete an article. Fences&Windows 13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is the POV-fork about Putin-related topics. It is impossible to have nPOV in such articles. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - surely an enough notable term. Närking (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Benedict Cushing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable for being a wife of a redlinked person, a relative of notable persons and a "socialite." Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, and none of the more specific sets of criteria seem to apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 21:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:BIO; nothing can prove the notability of the article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was apparently based on the free portion of the NYT article. Since I have the full text available, (and most people should also, through most public or school libraries) I have added material to the article to show the notability .She was a trustee of many NY institutions,wife to two very well known men, and apparently a major figure in NY Society. I'm adding some additional refs now. The NYT may have given full obits to relatively minor NY society people in its earliest years, but not in the 1980s. Our principle remains that anyone with a full obit there is notable, but she would be anyway. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIs that "our" principle, shown by consensus at most AFDs or by a guideline? Is there a link or links to help demonstrate that? I do not recall that having a "full obituary" in any particular newspaper or magazine has been sufficient to satisfy notability. She is known for marrying well, and is mentioned in the articles about those she married. Nice job finding and adding refs, but it still seems to fall a bit short. Edison (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems to have been an important person and the NYT is, of course, a good source. No reason to delete her article, although I don't think many readers would find it interesting unless they knew her. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could've just kept the old AFDs open if someone was just going to renominate them all again the same day. Anyway, I'll copy my post from there, since nothing changed in that short period of time Dream Focus 06:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google news search shows the Los Angeles Times mentioning her as "Mary Benedict Cushing, one of the three famous Cushing sisters from Boston." Well, if a major newspaper says she's famous, then she's famous. Google book search shows a lot of hits about her, and not just because of her famous father. Dream Focus 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evan after the rewrite by DGG, there doesn't seem to be much here. She appears to be a socialite who served on some boards. Most socialites do. AniMate 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further expand. Even the New York Times source in the article called her a "leader in Arts". Sad that in death one's notability comes to the fore.[19][20] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in NYT + other indep sources, and links to others span across several other people, hence can't be placed in a parent article. Ours is not to judge why socialites are notable :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just dinner-parties, but notable Trustee positions. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She seems notable enough for NYT coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability is met by sources. Even the nom says she's notable, but apparently doesn't like that socialites can be notable.--Milowent (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cooper Nott, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Seems just to have been a man who had a job and eventually an obituary. Edison (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, and none of the more specific sets of criteria seem to apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►senator─╢ 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:BIO; I cannot see how he is notable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The court he served on appears to have been, at the time, the state criminal trial court in New York County (Manhattan). [21] State trial judges are not presumed to be notable just by virtue of that position; articles about them need to establish notability by some other means. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since this AfD began, the article has been expanded to include more information which tends to establish the subject's notability, including the attempted bomb attack on his home. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a New York Times obituary is a defacto recognition of notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What guideline states that? Which newspaper in the world provide automatic Wikipedia notability for everyone who gets an obituary? I find no reference to this view or to obituaries at WP:BIO or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, so it seems to be a novel and unconvincing argument. Edison (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This says so: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Seems like a slam dunk to me. Unless you think the New York Times is not reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like a novel proposition, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmine Nigro (January 2009 keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Martin (January 2007 keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Michael Dasburg (October 2007 keep), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Barney Dallenbach (Sept. 2006 keep), etc.--Milowent (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think all of the articles RAN has been writing are justifiable, but this one is. We have consistently accepted a NYT obit as a criterion DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, and the NYTimes obituary makes this a definite keep. Alansohn (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the other keeps on this. An obituary like that in a major newspaper, isn't something done for anyone not notable. Dream Focus 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened this discussion because I was mistaken in closing it as speedy keep. PleaseStand ^(talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to pass GNG or BIO. AniMate 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "State" judge or not, the individual meets notability through WP:GNG... and for someone born in 1869, that works for me. Stub needs expansion per available sources.[22][23] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trial judges are not notable, see WP:POLITICIAN. Gattosby (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment struck as contribution of a blocked sock. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trial judges can be notable, under the GNG or other notability guidelines. No comment on whether this one is. Buddy431 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gattosby is a dirty dirty blocked sock, pay no mind to his "delete."--Milowent (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG.--Milowent (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is refeenced and the fact he was judge that somebody perhaps wanted to blow up makes him notable. If he was not notable for being a judge he ceratinly was for the bomb attack on his doorstep. If he was newsworthy/notable (in his life-time) that should be good enough for Wikipedia today. Or is the project running out of space? Giacomo 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a real stretch to claim automatic notability for Judge Nott because a bomb went off near his house when he was away, when the illiterate and inept bombers actually wanted to blow up someone else with a similar name. Having been in a news story is not sufficient, per WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS means we can't have an article on the bombing. It doesn't address whether Nott has significant coverage in reliable sources including the bombing article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." You can argue that the reasons the reliable sources provided the significant coverage weren't really important, but Wikipedia doesn't care about importance, just notability and verifiability. I don't think we can deconstruct why people are notable like socialites and reality show stars, we just have to accept that they receive significant coverage in reliable sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per DGG. side note; NYT obit automatic notable? seems discriminatory... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The automatic NY Obit & mistaken identity arguments are extremely tenuous claims to notability imho, the former is most definitely not codified practice, the latter is a mere non-consequential coincidence, and the article contains pretty much nothing else but that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a lawyer with an obituary can stay, surely a judge with a bigger obituary can stay. Wknight94 ^talk 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that can stay? It was a 'no consensus', and a rather shabby looking Afd. Voting 'keep' here on the strength of your apparent umbrage in not getting your way in that decision, is pretty ludicrous. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, accepting NYT obits (and obits in the London Times also) is indeed established practice. It's not "codified" in the sense of being in the guidelines, because a list of specific sources that are accepted as notable is not generally included in formal guidelines, as it tends to fossilize them and encourage people to say nothing else will be accepted. Cites to previous discussions will be forthcoming if needed. I know we don't go by formal precedent, but we do try to be rational enough to decide similar things similarly. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much welcome examples of 'keep, NYT obit' being an Afd lock, but I rather suspect that in other cases, there will be other evidence of notability aswell, either in the article or in sources, which is not the case for this article, when you discount the mistaken identity and the relative level of office. I have only ever once even dared to write a biography based soley on the strength of an obituary (actally, two obits, and a book ref), and that guy was a decorated war hero, and I am to this day still unsure whether the article is acceptable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MickMacNee, my apparent (nonexistent) umbrage = straw man. I have no umbrage - I don't take AFD nom's personally. I couldn't care less that that article was kept - but it sets a notability precedent that this article surpasses. Not so ludicrous then, eh? Now ease up please and do take my example, i.e. don't take umbrage with an AFD result. Wknight94 ^talk 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a no consensus, it sets no precedent by definition. If you couldn't care less, then simply don't mention it. It's not like that article is now the gold standard to which all others will be measured by now is it? MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have quite a talent for twisting my words incorrectly. Could you stop please? When I say "I couldn't care less", I merely mean I am not upset about it in any way - as you implied I was. As for a standard, that article about a less notable person still exists so that's a good enough standard for me. Wknight94 ^talk 23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe its good enough for you, but I am sure most right minded editors, and hopefully the closer here, know that this is about as bad a way of framing a deletion rationale as you can get, per WP:OSE, and will simply discount your opinion if you don't add anything sensible to it. To illustrate the absurdity, I could go and Afd it again right now, and that would pretty much invalidate your rationale here wouldn't it? Well, probably not, because this afd would have to be closed a day earlier, but I'm sure you get the point. To put it bluntly, you want to use as a precedent, an Afd where the number of invalid keep opinions actually outweighs the number which attempted to give a policy backed rationale (two by my count), end even then, that definition is shaky. Based on those two votes, we might as well work up the Notable Obituary=Notable Person guidline right now, because that's pretty much what you are saying with this argument that that article/Afd outcome is now the acceptable standard for notability. Madness. MickMacNee (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~On the fence~~ Delete. I reject the notion that a NYT obit, by itself, establishes notability, but it's certainly direct, detailed coverage of the man. So combine the obit with some other coverage, and he just might squeak by. If someone with access to the other cited NYT articles (the November 7, 1913 and June 3, 1919 article) can confirm that they actually discuss the man in detail, and not just mention him in passing or exclusively in reference to a specific event, then I'll change my !vote to weak keep. And if more substantial coverage is found, then I'd be a full keeper. Basically, I'm looking for WP:BIO to me conclusively met. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? The only source not accessible to me is the NYT Obituary, and I have no subscriptions. You need to click 'View Full Article' to get them in pdf form. The 1913 article is a tiny piece, whose main subject is actually Arthur Train, who is replacing Nott as ADA. All it says is that Nott was being elected to the Sessions bench. That's it. The 1919 article is as you would expect, all about the bombing. It gives as much bio detail about Nott as is necessary for the reader to realise the bombing was a case of mistaken identity. MickMacNee (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for straightening me out, MickMacNee. Having now read the articles, it's apparent that neither cover his life or career directly or in any sort of detail, so I've changed by !vote to delete. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BASIC. The NYT obit is in-depth coverage, the other three NYT articles much less so, but probably adds up to enough. As an aside, I would argue that historical subjects are at a disadvantage in finding coverage compared to modern people. The encyclopedia is richer by the inclusion of biographies of those who may have been just as notable in their day as our current celebrities (for whom there is little problem in finding press coverage). --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Do you really think that finding coverage of a notable judge who worked in the first half of the 20th Century would actually be that difficult a task? Really? We have three sources here on a plate already, an obituary, a coincidence, and a routine news article. I don't think we are talking Library of Alexandria type obstacles here to be giving out such free passes at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you try to breathe a bit. You're going way too far here. Calm down please. Wknight94 ^talk 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes seriously. You have already seen the difficulty in accessing his obituary. An equivalently eminent judge nowadays would have obituaries readily accessible in a dozen print or online sources. In an era where public interest was far more focussed on issues like crime, rather than pop-singing, the judge who presided over the second trial of James Joseph Hines would certainly have been far more of a public figure than today. But we have difficulty in establishing that perspective, because the further back we go, the fewer sources are available. Also I wouldn't dismiss the NYT article on the bombing so quickly as a 'coincidence', it was Nott's house that was blown up, regardless of the intended target. Add it all together and it's a long way from a 'free pass at AfD'. If you like, I'll plead guilty to asking for a borderline keep, but it is important to give some lee-way when considering deleting biographies of figures who predate the age of mass communication, lest we end up with just the bios of those who achieved Andy Warhol's "fifteen minutes of fame". --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about 1939 here, not 1739. Accessing a rare manuscript is difficult. Paying for an NYT subscription, or walking to the local library, is not. The burden of proof is on you to show he was a public figure, not simply assert he might have been and it's just a bit difficult to check the facts right now. 1939 in music is overflowing with biographies. No issue there it seems. BURDEN applies whether the biography is about someone from 1939 or 2009. And the bombing is a nothingness, a simple case of NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why there is no article on the bombing itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 70 years ago, there was a dearth of sources compared to today. I took a look at Harry James a random biography from 1939 in music – not a single contemporary source; all seven sources online. Then take a look at modern figures who are famous for being 'judges' (in today's pop-culture orientation): 39 year old Amanda Holden has 14 references; Simon Cowell has 58, and all of them online. You make a serious mistake by attempting to make historic figures strictly meet standards designed to cull non-notable garage bands. This article, of course is NOT about the bombing as reported in the NEWS, but it is clear that an element of that story is that it concerns Charles Cooper Nott the a public figure, rather than Charles Cooper Bloggs, the local milkman. I agree it's not in-depth coverage, but "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". I'm still firmly of the opinion that the in-depth coverage in the obituary, plus the multiple minor contemporary references, add up to notability for someone born 140 years ago, even if we would be surprised to find such meagre sourcing for a notable judge born just 40 years ago. --RexxS (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed accounts of a judicial reasoning (how did the judge arrive at the decision in a notable public case) are in-depth coverage. And I struggle to see the point what makes a case tried before 1939 different from a case tried in 1940. Could you please direct me to a policy that draws the line through 1939? East of Borschov (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood my requirements completely. I am asking for evidence of sources, not online sources. I really don't know what your beef is with pop-culture, but it's really got sod-all to do with this Afd, or how Wikipedia judges the notability of historic figures. MickMacNee (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I haven't made myself clearer. For any modern figure, there are multitude of contemporary sources, many online which are easily accessible. For historical figures, there are obviously no online contemporary sources, and in general fewer contemporary sources can be found - in addition, those will tend to be more inaccessible. The guideline at WP:BASIC is taken to mean two substantial sources = notability; or multiple less-substantial sources = notability. One could assume that one substantial source + "some" less-substantial sources = notability, but the "some" is ill-defined and has to be a matter of judgement. All I am asking is that the closer, when exercising that judgement on how many makes "some", gives allowance for the fact that fewer of those sources will be found than if Nott were a modern subject. That is absolutely pertinent to to this AfD, and with how Wikipedia judges the notability of historical figures, especially in borderline cases. Is that clear now? --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would simply be easier to say all session judges are auto-notable, than make the assumptions you want to make. It flies in the face of all other pertinent N-type guidance, but at least it saves people the hassle of going down the library if they are wirting about the pre-internet age. a.k.a. 99% of written history. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole. This is nothing to do with session judges; it concerns whether an individual who has one substantial source plus a handful of less substantial ones should have an article on Wikipedia. It is indeed unfortunate that editors who wish to write biographies about historic figures often have to put in the leg-work (as happened here). It's one of the reasons why we have 470,000 BLPs, but only 840,000 biographies in total. It would seem that your 99% of living history is grossly under-represented on Wikipedia. I'm not asking for a change to our guidelines. I'm simply asking that when someone makes a judgement call based on those guidelines (as we're requesting the closer to do here), they bear in mind the paucity of sources for historic figures compared to the multitude for contemporary ones. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Unfortunately, notability criteria for dead judges are far higher than for women engaging in sex on camera. Especially when it comes to campaigning against a single user and when the article subject is obscured by the shadow of his greater father. That said, there's far more news coverage of Nott Jr. that is now in the article. Over a thousand NYT articles (I confess I only checked the first sixty-something). His nomination in 1927 elections was a matter of heated, well-publicized debate. So was the 1939 case against Hines. So was the 1921 case against policeman Cornelius J. Flood (it was sort of Rodney King case for its time), the 1923 case against brokers Fuller and McGee etc. The Frederick Edel death sentence (which was commuted by none other than F. D. Roosevelt). etc. East of Borschov (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically significant, long-serving judge per above comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which comments? MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the "keep" comments. I also respectfully question the wiki-priorities of anyone devoting substantial effort to seeking deletion of this article or ones like it. In any reasonable listing of the problems affecting Wikipedia, the existence of an allegedly-borderline-non-notable article about a judge from the previous century would rank in, approximately, eight thousandth place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to write this great comment down :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who doesn't see the obvious downside of keeping non-notable articles, really really should not be talking as if they know what the true priorities of Wikipedia are. Still, I guess we are really not going to shake this idea that the "previous century" was an information dark-age, so I guess it's here to stay, and hang the consequences for it, and the rest. I await in eager anticipation of anybody adding something to this article that asserts notability, beyond long lived session judge who lived in the dark ages, and had his house blown up for no reason to do with him at all. Although judging by the low expectations being shown here, that's never going to happen. I got 99 problems and articles aint one. MickMacNee (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely aghast at the idea of this article being kept. We got it. Let's move on. Wknight94 ^talk 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, partially on the basis that he is notable enough for his own Wikisource entry.Juliancolton (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, it seems the Wikisource entry is actually on his father. Juliancolton (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NYT coverage alone would be sufficient. Also if you're notable enough to attract targetted bombers, you're probably notable enough for hereabouts. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you didn't read the article or this AfD very carefully, as evidenced by the fact that only 3 minutes elapsed between your !vote here and your !vote at another, RAN-related AfD, and the fact that Nott was not the intended target of the bombing. So whether or not attracting bombers makes one notable, the argument is irrelevant here. Driveby !voting is contrary to the notion that AfDs are reasoned discussions. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One gets the impression that 'keep' !votes on this AfD causes steam to escape from your ears!--Milowent (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pleasing image. I think he just needs to learn to read more quickly. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad you read the article so fast you skipped the part about how the bomb was intended for someone else. Comprehension is one goal in reading. Edison (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps he had read the source as well as the article. The two bombers died in the blast and their intentions are mere speculation. The headline "Wreck Judge Nott's Home" is a pretty clear indication that Nott was sufficiently well-known to make it a key point of the news story. Comprehension is indeed invaluable, but you need to read the whole story to understand it. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious from AD's !vote that he thought the bombers targeted Nott, and it's obvious both from our article and the sources it cites that Nott was most likely not the target. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long way short of obvious. The source says "The similarity between the names of Federal Judge John C. Knox, who has handled many cases against the reds, was recalled, and the police expressed the opinion that the Federal official may have been the person aimed at." (my emphasis) That's an opinion that someone else may have been the target, and is substantiated nowhere. The singular fact remains that Nott's home was bombed along with others, but his name made the headline. --RexxS (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point: I don't care at all whether Nott was or was not the intended target. What I do care about, though, is that editors participating in these discussions carefully consider the article as well as any discussion that has preceded their vote. Reflexively voting !keep or !delete doesn't do the project any good. It's blatantly obvious from the amount of time between Dingley edits and his misstatement of facts from the article that he hasn't actually done the due diligence that's expected of editors participating in these discussions. Neither our article nor the NYT article say he was "targeted" by the bombers, in fact both say he was most likely not the intended target, but it's apparent from Dingley's !vote that he thinks he was the target. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to edit collegially in this project, then we have to learn to assume good faith in others. It does you no credit to disparage fellow editors based on your assumptions about what they have or haven't read. AD has possibly spent as much time as you studying the article and its sources. For what it's worth, neither the article nor the source state that "he was most likely not the intended target". The source says (1) what I quoted above - that police opinion was that Knox may have been the intended target; (2) the NYT had a different opinion stating "Judge Charles Nott, Jr., upon whose life an attempt was made by means of a bomb placed in the cellar area-way of his home ...". We are each free to reach our own conclusions about what happened from the source. It is not unreasonable to conclude that Nott may have been the target. The point here is indeed not whether he was the target or not, but that AGF requires us to accept that others are acting in good faith, and suspending AGF requires far more than the assumption that your own interpretation is the only correct one. --RexxS (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample sources, ample evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. (non-admin closure) VernoWhitney (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep to shawl[edit]

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

~~Nothing here to show that WP:ORG or WP:N are satisfied.~~ Also is no more than a dictionary definition. Edison (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep—dunno where WP:ORG comes into it, this seems to be about a sport, which has a decent number of Google News hits. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 21:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Directory of upcoming events" items from May, 2010 you point out do not satisfy WP:N. Google news archive, going back more years, seems more promising . Edison (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Statesman Journal article on the page I linked to unacceptable? ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. More than a directory "listing of upcoming events" entryEdison (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be less a sport and more a crafts contest (the sort of thing you find at a country fair). We have a section at Sheep shearing on contests, so there should be somewhere suitable to at least merge this. Arts and crafts maybe? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two RS (one here, one in the article) which are non-trivial coverage. No objection to merging per Carcharoth's idea, either. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gnews items are sufficient to show it as a fairly accepted type of event. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real thing, and these types of events get mentioned in the news. Probably a lot more common in the old days then it is now. Dream Focus 06:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the AFD is open and there are some eyes on the subject, if someone could make the article more encyclopedic by adding some refs and expanding it beyond a 2 sentence dicdef with one reference it would be helpful in heading off future AFD nominations, if this one gets closed as Keep.Edison (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's notable will head off a future AfD nomination. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish it were that simple. Edison (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that there's a group/task/force/wikiproject devoted to precisely that purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in news for over 40 years,[24] and in hundreds of book[25] show notability per WP:GNG and WP:POTENTIAL for great improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There are clearly sources here, they just needed to be added. AniMate 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can definitely be kept and improved. Giacomo 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, suggest snow Keep Now that some sources have been identified which can be used in the future to expand and improve the article. Edison (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep votes are particularly weak (some are frankly spurious), but even taking that into account there appears to be enough reasonable rationales not to close this as Delete. This closure does of course not preclude a re-nomination at any point. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton (reverend)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, with only directory listings and passing references at Google Book Search, and some hits about different persons with a similar name. Being related to a notable person does not make him notable. Edison (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I agree entirely with the nominator; there are no germane references listed dealing with this person as their subject. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 21:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Liberty without anarchy: a history of the Society of the Cincinnati ‎ Quote: - Page 230Minor Myers - History - 2004 - 280 pagesJohn Schuyler, treasurer general of the Cincinnati, offered advice, the ReverendAlexander Hamilton agreed to be chaplain, and by 1897 there were ...Snippet view - About this book - Add to My Library ▼ - More editions This reverend may have played some historic role in the Society of the Cincinnati which may well have been notable. Also I don't really see why we have to open Afds on RAN's articles a day after a sock was blocked for it. Bad timing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your citation leads to everything at Google Books. Please link to the particular work you are talking about. A nonnotable subject is nonnotable, regardless of who created the article. Plus "May have... and may well have... " sound grasping and do not add up to "notable." Edison (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just fixed the link above, Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

better link. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "better link" does not document the claimed historic role of the subject of this article, and the work's credibility is lessened by the phrase "the adoption of the federal Constitution in 1887". Funny, I thought it was earlier. Edison (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now the original link should work. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

in context, that's a clear misprint for 1787; the book is a RS, publ. by University of Virginia Press, & the author & perhaps even the book itself are probably notable [26]. Not saying this proves the notability oft he subject of this article, though. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one clicks here the seventh book from the top has the following description: "Liberty without anarchy: a history of the Society of the Cincinnati‎ - Page 230 Minor Myers - History - 2004 - 280 pages John Schuyler, treasurer general of the Cincinnati, offered advice, the Reverend Alexander Hamilton agreed to be chaplain, and by 1897 there were ... Snippet view - About this book - Add to My Library ▼ - More editions". If someone buys this book and reports back to us we can tell for sure how notable the reverend may have been. But from the description it is clear that he was notable enough to be mentioned by an RS and he also played a notable role in a notable organisation. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis}

You can't use that "source" as a reason to keep the article, you've no idea what it says!! ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 22:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would have a better idea if you read the quote above which mentions that he played some role in the society. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said in response to that, the fact that the article subject "may" have played "some" historic role isn't an acceptable reference. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if anyone bothered to read that reference maybe the role would have been great enough to bestow notability. Without reading the ref. we have an incomplete understanding of their notability. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you've ordered the book, have you? Or are you just !voting keep in the expectation that someone else will do some work to find out whether or not the page should actually be kept? ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 08:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; you tell me. Am I supposed to do all the work around here? Including pay out of pocket to save this article? I am sure you understand this is a collaborative project. Maybe you can buy the book and let us know. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the article kept then, yes, the burden of proof is on you to reference it adequately. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 18:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline does not demand that available sources be immediately placed into an article during an AFD. That they have been repeatedly presented here shows notability and potential that the article will serve the project by remaining and being improved over time and through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Michael. You enunciated by quoting policy what I was saying using common logic. Well done. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The timing is not a reason to keep the article. The fact that the article subject "may" have played "some" historic role, isn't either. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the clarification about the timing, thank you. I realise that timing is a subjective criterion not a policy supported one. But it is objectively inhumane to stress RAN like this. Obviously even this argument is not policy supported either but it is a matter of taste. And I find it distasteful. You may not, as it is properly your right; as I hope you realise it is my right to hold the opposite opinion from yours. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We were only pointing out that your effectively WP:MERCY point about it being "objectively inhumane" (though objectively is meaningless in that phrase, and inhumane way over the top) is not a valid argument, will be ignored by the closing administrator, and it was therefore a complete waste of time you bothering to float it, particularly if you knew that it was inadmissable. But I'm sorry if we violated your inalienable right to freedom of thought. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 22:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your majesty I love thy referring to thyself in majestic plural. Please leave the repetition out of thy comments lest the bandwidth overloadeth. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was very obviously referring to Edison (talk · contribs) and myself having both raised the point about your 'timing' argument being inappropriate. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Maybe you can let Edison speak for themselves next time. But thanks for the clarification. I hadn't seen his comments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did let him speak for himself. He said, "A nonnotable subject is nonnotable, regardless of who created the article." Seems clear to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 08:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. In that case you should have replied in the singular to answer only for yourself. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and that meaningless, irrelevant drivel just about sums up your participation in this thread of the discussion. I will not be engaging further. Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 18:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your conceit in trying to judge the quality of my participation here is as great as your nonsensical comment. I am not going to miss you. But obviously you should avoid personall attacks that you hide in the links you provide, even though I will not stoop to your level and will not respond in kind. The attack is indicative of your level of thinking. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What "personall [sic] attack" did I "hide" in a link, sorry? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to disengage from this exchange with you. If you don't understand how what you are linking to can be construed as a personal attack is not my problem to make it clear for you. Also highlighting inadvertent typos to score points is another low of this conversation. I will not reply to your posts any further. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New York Times article Published: May 11, 1912 (EAGLE PRESIDES AT THE LAWTON DINNER; Daughters of the Cincinnati Also Drink from George Washington's Camp Cups) mentioning the reverend as a member of the advisory council for the Daughters of the Cincinnati as well as a member of the Society of the Cincinnati, also New York Times Article Published: February 24, 1914 on: "Society of the Cincinnati celebrates", with the reverend being mentioned as a guest. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we know he once ate dinner and he was on a committee. Does that make him notable? ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 08:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If his dinner was picked up by the New York Times I would think he could claim some notability. Not everyone's dinner gets picked up this way. In addition he gets mentioned in a historical book, as I showed above, as having accepted to be the chaplain of a historic organisation at its founding, maybe even a founding member. So the preponderance of the evidence points in the direction of notability. As DreamFocus mentions below there are more mentions of him elsewhere. An American History expert could make good use of them and improve the article further. Why are we in such a rush to erase a historical person who played such in an interesting part in American History? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A historical person who played such in an interesting part in American History.^{[citation needed]} You've only seen a snippet of his name appearing in one Google Book. You pointed out that he "may" have held "some" significant role. Doesn't sound interesting/important to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Top marks for creativity. That ((fact)) tag was a nice, although useless in this context, visual effect. Ok. I can see your point that currently his notability may not be really strong. But neither it is non-existent. That's why we are having this discussion and we raise all these points for and against. It is a rather obscure topic of Americana but on balance I think it should not be axed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google book search shows him mentioned in 40 different places, even after a minus sigh eliminates the two false hits of Vinton and Webster. [27] Dream Focus 14:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that the number of times someone is mentioned is irrelevant, it is also plainly wrong. "To covet honor: a biography of Alexander Hamilton" mentions a 1970s person of the same name" All mentions of before 1870 or so are not about this one (born in 1847), but yet another one. That's at least four more that don't apply. When you go to the end of the search, you only get 29 hits, not 40 or 38. Furthermore, all the onse taling about the National Railway Historical Society are also another one (perhaps the 1970s one, perhaps not). Something like "Modernism and the Celtic revival‎" also discusses another one, active in the 1850s. So your Google search count, while fundamentally irrelevant anyway, is very deeply flawed,with only a few of these results probably about the reverend (albeit in passing), and the majority about different people with the same name. Fram (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence that he is notable has been produced. Fram (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails ANYBIO. A few passing mentions in the NYT and being related to a founding father don't add up notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention? Coverage in The New York Times with a lengthy obituary meets all applicable standards of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since my !vote a NYT obit has been added. While that's a step in the right direction, I still don't think this adds up to standard of coverage required by ANYBIO or even WP:GNG. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me neutral. Several new sources have appeared in the article, and I haven't had a chance to see whether they actually discuss Hamilton directly or in detail, so I really can't say keep or delete. But given the main author's penchant for puffing up articles with superfluous references, I'd encourage all editors, but especially those voting !keep, to examine the sources carefully. The article definitely needs be cleaned up, though: It reads like a nice genealogical entry rather than an encyclopedia-style biography. For example, I can't for the life of me figure out what makes this guy special, other than being related to Alexander Hamilton. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Appears to be a run of the mill chaplain who happened to have a famous relative. AniMate 19:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical ~~nobility~~ notability is notability enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobility? Earl, baron, viscount, duke? What kind of nobility was he, actually? Fram (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Please excuse my typo (now corrected). I did not intend "nobility", I intended notability in that a historical notability, as seen through the numerous proffered sources (please review WP:GNG and WP:BIO}, is notable enough for Wikipedia. Coverage in The New York Times with a lengthy obituary meets all applicable standards of notability. Also, please review WP:POINT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This gentleman, while well respected during his life by his family and congregation, is not notable. So that I don't just say "he's not notable", I see no evidence in this biography that makes him distinctive. He was born, he went to seminary, he served his congregation, he was a Freemason. I don't think I've missed anything. There's nothing there that separates him from millions of other members of the clergy in this country's history. He wrote no books, he was elected to no office, he founded no companies, he made no important speeches. The only reference to him in print is in a volume of the New York genealogical society. I'm listed in several genealogical volumes from Hopkins County, Texas, but at least I've authored a book. Should I have an article in Wikipedia--no. --Taivo (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unfortunately, no assertion of notability. Just a mere pastor from a very famous family. Gattosby (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck as contribution of a blocked sock. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been pursuaded to vote keep by the very valid arguements and reasoning of User:Dr.K above. It seems this man is notable and it's likely this article will be of use to any student researching the subject. So yep, keep. It's of use. Giacomo 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is useful" is a classic nonjustification for keeping an article of only genealogical interest. Edison (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you've got to be kidding. "May have been notable" isn't notable. No one has demonstrated at any level whatsoever that this guy was different from any of a million chaplains/clergy over the past two centuries of American history. Notability doesn't just mean "A great guy, a guy whose name occurs once in the history of a minor organization, a guy above average". It means someone who did something notable, something somewhat historic. There's nothing in this gentleman's record that says that. "Above average" doesn't make one notable. "May have been notable" means that anyone who is ever mentioned by name in any reliable source whatsoever should have a Wikipedia article just in case they have done something noteworthy. NO. Wikipedia requires documentation, not speculation. Right now, all that exists here is speculation that he might have done something. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. Otherwise we should list every baby born because their names are listed in the newspaper under "Births" just in case they do something notable later that can be documented. --Taivo (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, this discussion is not about other unwritten articles... its about one... an individual who meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A New York Times obit is a defacto marker for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps today, but not 100 years ago. There has still been absolutely NO evidence presented whatsoever that this gentleman, as good a pastor as he might have been, fits within Wikipedia's standards for notability. The question which no one has addressed is, "What did this man do that warrants special treatment?" What made him special to justify a Wikipedia entry? No one has given a single valid piece of information. The closest anyone has come is, "He might have been notable". My grandfather might have been notable under that specious justification. You created this article. You should be able to answer that question right away. But if the only "notability" that you based this article on was an obit in the NY Times, then you have no justification whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once notable always notable. Why deconstruct what notability means, either the media took notice of you or they didn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, but my comment was about the New York Times obituary being the sole measure of notability. An obit in today's New York Times might be a measure of notability, but not necessarily an obit in the New York Times of 100 years ago. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fascinating individual, whose article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources, most notably a substantial obituary in The New York Times. We can deal with what are deemed to be borderline articles by improving them or tossing them into the garbage can. Sadly, there are far too many individuals who will disruptively pursue deletion, when improving the article is the far more productive option. Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, what did he do? Have you read the NY Times obit? It's only available to subscribers online. If he did something, then add it to the article as you suggest, but so far no one has said a single notable thing that he did. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, Alansohn has a subscription, mine expired. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing do with having done "a single notable thing", and everything to do with coverage in reliable and verifiable sources. He meets the WP:GNG as having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which makes him notable; The artificial "but what specific thing did he do" standard you have invented does not exist. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is more than just an obit (which is unavailable for examination except by subscribers). No one has claimed to have actually read this obituary. If so, then they should be able to list more than just a competent clergyman as his claim to notability. --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says that " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Every fact is tied to a reference, so the coverage as defined by Wikipedia is significant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And "fascinating"? Based solely on this Wikipedia article? Your standards are rather low if that's the case. If you know more, then please share it. This gentleman may be notable, but there's absolutely no evidence of it at this point. --Taivo (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, covered only in passing and does not appear to mee inclusion standards. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in The New York Times with a lengthy obituary seems to "mee" all applicable standards of notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. User:DGG also noted this about the NYT obituary in a separate but related Afd. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. And my disagreement aside, I doubt you'll find consensus for this view. As noted above, a NYT obit from 80 years ago isn't the same one from today. And if it's only the instance of significant coverage of this person, then WP:BIO isn't met, as this guideline requires multiple sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilloslime: Please review WP:NTEMP and since the obit is not the only available source for this individual, you might wish to review WP:GNG as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should review WP:GNG--it requires significant (i.e. non-trivial, "direct detailed") coverage in sources. Plural. Certainly the obit is one such source, but we need more than just one, and the genealogical sources don't cut it my book. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more. There is a book mentioning him and some NYT articles. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But since no one is coming forward who has actually examined or actually read any of the NT Times articles or the book, then all we are basing this bio on are Google quotes or the existence of a NY Times obit title. Just the existence of an 80-year-old NY Times obit and a quote that no one seems to have placed in context really isn't enough to call this a notable person. I ask again, What did he do that was notable? He served in the Army, he became a clergyman, he joined a political club, he was a Freemason. So? --Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was "asked" to join the organisation and this was later reported in a notable book more than a century later. He has some historical standing obviously. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on everyone who was asked to join that organization? And the nature of that "notable book" isn't exactly clear. If the book is so notable, why wasn't it used to write this article? Doesn't anyone actually have a copy of that book so that they can defend his status? The only quote that has been produced is from Google Books and isn't much of a note. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the book was a history of that particular organization, and a listing of principal officers in that organization over time would be a natural part of the writing. That doesn't make each of the listed officers worthy of note just because they are in a written history of that particular organization. I still ask the question, "What did he do that was notable?" No one has produced a single piece of evidence, only hearsay. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from the article: The Society of the Cincinnati is a historic organization with branches in the United States and France founded in 1783 to preserve the ideals and fellowship of the Revolutionary War officers and to pressure the government to honor pledges it had made to officers who fought for American independence. I don't know about you, Taivo, but this does not sound like a club to me. It sounds like an important American historical organisation. And I for one, would love to know more about their historical chaplain. But maybe you don't care so much. I don't know why. And I am not even an American :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a political advocacy group, Dr. K, not "an important American historical organization". It ranks with other political advocacy groups. But even if it were important in 1783 when it was founded, the soldiers of the American Revolution were long dead by the late 1800s and Alexander Hamilton was not their only chaplain in the 100 years from 1783 until he joined. No one has yet pointed to one solitary thing that he should be noted for. People claim there is a long obit in the NY Times, but no one seems to have actually read it and no one has cited a single thing out of it pointing to notability. The obit's existence is not a measure of notability. --Taivo (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:ANYBIO level of notability, not in the article, or in here. Many arguments seem speculative at best. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton. Wknight94 ^talk 01:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography[edit]

Just added to the article by RAN. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading our entry on the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, that doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement in regards to notability. Apparently, this work: lacks the scholarly approach and the bibliographies characteristic of the latter work. The entries in the National Cyclopaedia are unsigned and are largely based upon questionnaires and other information supplied by families of the biographees. A source that relies on family letters and isn't peer reviewed. Wow. AniMate 22:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing notability and verifiability. Who they chose to include determines notability. Whether the person in the biography actually graduated from Harvard or failed out of Harvard and reported that they graduated is a matter of verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Maybe not as rigorous as the British equivalent (DNB) but like I said before the preponderance of the evidence points toward plausible notability. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):: @RAN: Exactly. It doesn't sound like the Cyclopaedia is a reliable source, and WP:GNG and WP:BIO require coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Reams of coverage in non-reliable sources, or non-independent sources doesn't add up to notability. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing notability and verifiability. Who they chose to include determines notability. Whether the person in the biography actually graduated from Harvard or failed out of Harvard and reported that they graduated is a matter of verifiability. The same may be said for the Time 100 each year, Michael Moore may not be the best choice to write a short biography of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for verifiability, but the choices denote notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no blacklisting of the source by Wikipedia. Several other sources were blacklisted as unreliable including an encyclopedia of criminals where the author claimed he inserted false biographies as copyright traps. If you think the source should be blacklisted, start a thread. Appletons Cyclopedia has problems too, but still is used as a source and has its own source tag. The Twelve Caesars is a mix of gossip and history, but it is used as a source for the biographies of those 12 people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oe of the bases of work here has always been that a full obit in the NYT or the London Times proves notability,and I would no sooner go behind it that doubt whether an Olympic athlete were really worthy of a spot on the national team. These rules of thumb aren't perfect, but they eliminates discussions like this, where we try to use our own unaided judgement. The fact that we cannot reliable do so is why we rely on sources. On balance, they're the surest available criterion for general notability in the US and the UK in recent times.We have to rely on something, and an obit in either of them is worth any number of obits in local papers of any sort. Sources are not actually divided into R/~R,but rather thereis a spectrum of reliability. I think some of the standards we are sometimes using are hyper-critical--there is no academic bio source that is free from errors as far as WP:V is concerned, or that is totally free of what would seem hard-to-explain inclusions or exclusions as far as WP:N is concerned. (This specifically includes the new and old DNBs.). It's just an illusion that the academic world is perfect, and that everything published by a good publisher is true. But we have to deal with the sources that exist, and the attempt to go behind them is exactly what constitutes OR, in which we are generally not qualified to engage. I would accept an entry in the NCAB as being at least an indication of reliability. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DGG's view does not appear in WP:BIO and clearly is the view of some editors, but not a consensus view. The NY Times is an internationally known paper, but it is also a local newspaper, and sometimes publishes long obits of persons of only local importance, whose obituary would not be carried by papers in other regions,. This appears to be one such case. If a wire service carried the obit, and if papers in other regions carried an obit of the individual, it would be more convincing. Wikipedia is not a mindless and uncritical mirror of the obit section of any newspaper. Edison (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An obit was provided by AP, and had a full sentence about this Alexander Hamilton, and one about his ancestor.[28] It also appeared (as far as I can tell identical) in the Chicago Tribune. The only slightly more indepth one seems to be the NYTimes obit. Fram (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this wire service obit, the only notable thing about our gentleman was his ancestry and his membership in the clergy. In other words, there was nothing notable about him written here. --Taivo (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't require notable deeds just "significant coverage". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a distant relative of Alexander Hamilton is not a basis for notability in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only requires that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It doesn't matter why the New York Times and the National Biography chose to write about him. I don't know why reality stars or sports figures are written about, but they are, and they are notable by Wikipedia standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this gentlemen has not received "significant coverage". He has an obit in the NY Times, that, as far as anyone has said, says nothing but that he was a local clergyman. You've read the obit, so what has he done other than being born of a famous ancestor? I ask again, "What did he do that is notable?" Not one single, solitary person here has said a single notable thing that he has done to warrant Wikipedia coverage. The only sources that have been discussed here are:

1) The NY Times obit which we can only read the first paragraph of and only says that he was a local clergyman. If there's more, then no one is saying that any notable information is written.
2) A wire service obit that was printed that only says he was a local clergyman and was the scion of a famous ancestor.
3) A "National Dictionary of Biography" entry that no one has provided any notable information from. The entry may just say "He was a local clergyman who was descended from Alexander Hamilton" for all anyone has quoted from it. I don't know how much weight to put on such "society volumes". I'm listed in the "Who's Who among American High School Students" for 1973. That doesn't make me notable.
4) A listing in a genealogical volume. Well, so are millions of other non-notable people.
5) A quote from a book about one of the societies he belonged to that says nothing about why he's notable, only that he became chaplain in a certain year (as, I'm sure, it lists other men who served as chaplain over the years).

If this gentleman is actually notable, then it should be easy for one of you who are begging to keep this article to write something notable about him. So far, there has been not one single, solitary notable thing written about him. Notability requires more than just your name occurring in a book about a society you joined or in an obituary in the local paper. --Taivo (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are arguing that he has to have done something notable. Wikipedia only asks that he be notable as in the rule: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As I said earlier I don't think sports people or reality stars or socialites are notable, but reliable media do. You being in "Who's Who among American High School Students" is just one entry and is a "pay to play" system. They were still calling me and now email me for $500 to be included if I buy the subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his ancestry is the only notable thing. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While arguments have been made that a NYT obit from a century ago does not carry the same weight as one does now (which is likely true), I find no argument convincing that it does not still meet the standard of being significant coverage by an independent reliable source. This combined with the entry in Genealogical and family history of southern New York for me meets the requirements of WP:GNG, particularly with the other sources (even though the others may provide lesser and less reliable coverage). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you didn't say that a genealogical reference is an adequate source to prove notability! Genealogical references are nothing more than extensive family histories that attempt to list nearly everyone of genealogical, not historical interest in an area. I'm listed in several genealogical references for east Texas. That doesn't make me Wiki-worthy. A genealogical reference does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG since notability is the least of the requirements for being entered into it. Evaluate your sources, people. Don't just blindly wander off and think that every book is equal in its relevance to Wikipedia. And the NY obit is not sufficient in and of itself. The Wikipedia standard is significant coverage in reliable sources (plural). --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me in the direction of the policy, guideline, or essay that states that in order to be a reliable source, the source must use notability as a requirement? Besides which, I imagine that not every single person who lived in southern New York is listed in the book, and so notability does enter into it at least a little. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"How reliable a source is, and the basis of its reliability, depends on the context" from WP:RS. It depends on the context. An obit in the New York Times of a local clergyman must be judged in context. Without corroborating evidence that Rev. Hamilton was notable in any other way, a NY Times obit simply isn't sufficient to prove notability. Mention in a genealogical source, well, isn't a measure of notability at all, but solely a measure of usefulness for genealogical research. Genealogical convenience is not one of the functions of Wikipedia. No one has answered a single, simple question that I have asked time and again: "What did Rev. Hamilton do that is worthy of note in Wikipedia?" So far not a single person has answered that question. The only answer that has been offered ad nauseum is "his name is in the NY Times". Well, that's not an answer sufficient to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia. I've been mentioned in several local papers, I've been interviewed on public radio, I've written a book, I teach at a university, I'm mentioned in several genealogical books, I belong to civic organizations, I'm a Freemason, I went to a theological seminary, I was in the military during wartime. Does that make me notable, too? That's the level of reliable source that we're relying on for Rev. Hamilton, except he never published a book and was never on the radio. Get some perspective. I ask again, "What did Rev. Hamilton do that was notable?" Just getting your name in the paper is not notability. The NY Times of 80 years ago also published the police blotter, I imagine. --Taivo (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree about this one. I agree with your point that it appears he didn't do anything notable, but that isn't our criteria. If it were I'd ask "What did Paris Hilton do that was notable?" VernoWhitney (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if our criterion is simply "name must appear in a reliable source" then we've opened the floodgates to everyone whose name has ever appeared in the NY Times, a genealogical listing, or the unabridged history of some civic organization. Where does it end? Where's my article? My name has appeared in multiple reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's not a genealogical listing, it's a stub-length biography which is complete enough that I count it as significant coverage in a genealogical source. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Wikipedia already excludes telephone book entries and listings because they are not "significant coverage". Who is who is not "independent of the subject", you pay $500 and submit your biography in a standard form. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't focus on "Who's Who" (I didn't pay a dime to be listed 37 years ago). And notice that I did not include the phone book. Every written source that includes my name is a valid reliable source--newspapers, academic books, professional journals. You did not address the problem of including every name ever listed in the New York Times or every person ever given an obit in the New York Times 100 years ago. It's not a logical fallacy--it is a real issue. You are saying that any person who is listed in a reliable source should have an entry in Wikipedia, despite what they may or may not have done to deserve it. Rev. Hamilton did nothing remarkable here as far as any of you have found. He was a good clergyman who served in the military, graduated from seminary, and served his community. I applaud him. But that doesn't warrant an entry in Wikipedia just because he got his name in the paper. I've had my name in the paper, too and published a book and peer-reviewed research as well. Where's my article? No, the slippery slope is very real if you continue down this road of not demanding something out of the ordinary for entries in Wikipedia. If your criterion for inclusion is so weak as to be simply "publication in a reliable source", then you open the floodgates. --Taivo (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably only $50 back then, and to get in you had to also buy a copy, which was the fee. Its a great business model. They also worked with the National Honor Society to enlist people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a famous debating trick--focus on some trivial detail to the exclusion of the big picture issue and your audience will forget the bigger issue. --Taivo (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not what I am saying, it is what Wikipedia is saying: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." You are again confusing notability and verifiability. Your publications are verifiable, but since they just list your name and academic affiliation they are not "significant coverage". They have no biographical details that can be used to construct an article. They are the same as a phone book, useful to construct a CV, but have no "significant coverage" to write a biography. And yes, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, it is the first lesson in any debating class, public speaking class, or junior high school class on logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Taivo, if you've had your name in the paper, published a book and peer-reviewed research, an article about you would probably survive here. It would certainly get more than one Keep vote, esp. if a prominent person here wrote it. (You would lose keep votes for WP:COI if you wrote it yourself). Wknight94 ^talk 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it. Maybe then he can relax enough to let us have this one. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Dr. K ;) My concern is that Wikipedia not become just a clearinghouse for an article on every single person who's had their name listed in a newspaper. If a NY Times obit is the criterion for inclusion without some indication of something notable that was done by that person, then the slippery slope is upon us. --Taivo (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you have shifted from the slippery slope fallacy to the strawman fallacy. There are multiple references available in the article, I am not sure why you need to set up the NY Times as a strawman. In the strawman you pick the weakest argument and tear it down and then say the whole debate is negated. Again, it is a logical fallacy. Any other logical or rhetorical fallacies you are holding in reserve? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But none of these references really focus on anything that Rev. Hamilton actually did that would make him notable. He was a good clergyman. No one denies that. He did the things that good clergymen normally do. No one denies that. But does that make him notable? No. The only basis that you are using to call him notable is the fact that his local newspaper happened to be the New York Times and not the Slippery Rock Gazette. --Taivo (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has performed no notable deeds that I can discern from the multiple biographies of him. But Wikipedia is about notable people where "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I understand your argument for notable deeds as a requirement, and maybe you should lobby for that change in the notability guideline and we can delete actors, sports figures, socialites, internet memes, and reality TV people. After all, actors just appear in films and sports people just throw balls. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability easilly established. Would be interesting to have a section about this theology and writings. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, FeydHuxtable, he had no writings. That's part of the problem--his "notability" comes from his ancestry and his name. --Taivo (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stick to the Wikipedia definition of notability which says: "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Your personal definition is nice, but not useful in this debate. I see you are still sticking to the strawman fallacy and setting up his relations to his grandfather as the strawman. Aren't you a linguistics professor? We shouldn't be arguing over the clear Wikipedia wording if words are your area of expertise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your intention to turn this disagreement personal? --Taivo (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, but as a linguist you should appreciate the clear wording of the Wikipedia rule that determines what gets an article. You sound more like a lawyer or a politician than someone devoted to the clarity of language. And why the link to "attack"? Reminding you that you devoted your life to clarity in language is personal, not a personal attack. Just as me being a scientist, you should have expectations of my ability on scientific topics in my area. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making any argument that is directed personally is a personal attack. I have made no personal attacks directed at you, so I warn you to keep the arguments focused on the issue and not on me personally. You need to review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL very carefully before you go down this path of discussion. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, read what you link too. Making a personal statement, that you are a linguist is not a personal attack. Here we go again with me cutting and pasting an exact definition: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." While I mentioned your affiliation from your talk page, a linguist, I did not attack it. I said "as a linguist you should appreciate the clear wording of the Wikipedia rule that determines what gets an article." I don't see the word "appreciate" in many personal attacks. As Michael Corleone would have said said: "This isn't personal, it is just Wikipedia."

It is personal in the sense that you use personal information as a debating point in a discussion and imply that I should agree with you because of it. Lay all comments about my profession aside, dear sir, and do not use personal information as a point of debate. That is the content of your attack. If you want to discuss the issue at hand, then do so, but my profession is irrelevant, as is yours. --Taivo (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making a personal statement, that you are a linguist, is not a personal attack. It also isn't private information anymore, it is public information drawn from your user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, when a user does not want his information to be used, even when public, I think it would be better if it were not used, if for nothing else than not to irritate the editor concerned. I should know because in another occasion someone did the same thing to me and I had to tell them that this was not a nice thing to do. So let's drop this point, at least for the sake of moving forward in this discussion. Also using one's credentials as a point in a debate is improper because it may lead to comments that could be considered too personal for comfort, even an ad-hominem argument, which can form the basis of an attack. So it is best avoided. I would also like to add that if you agree with my points, please do not respond to them so that we can end this unproductive thread. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, NYT coverage would be enough to swing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per full obit in the NYT and other similar info noted by several editors. He's not a household name, but notable enough for a page here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A scandal?[edit]

A scandal involving his daughter and which led to his resignation, at a time when scandals were almost unthinkable, especially in families of the American Priesthood, and this article is still at AfD mode? Scandalous. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline says that a person whose family member was involved in some scandal is notable? I thought notability was not inherited. Edison (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for the loud bolding Edison. Did you bother to read the article? Did you read he said to his congregation that he is a "condemned man" and that he resigned after 25 years behind the pulpit because of his daughter's scandal? This, on top of everything else per all the "keep" points raised above, and the subsequent coverage of the scandal and its dire ramifications for him, by the NYT makes him notable. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by The Larry Sanders Show[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This listing of awards is short enough that it can be merged into the show's main article with great ease. WCityMike 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So merge it then. You don't need an AfD to do that. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"So merge it then." Nah, I'll go for so delete it then, like the nominator suggests, seeing how we're here anyway. Anyone who actually wants to merge it has my encouragement. Mandsford 21:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article and delete this article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge You can't merge then delete, per GFDL. This could certainly be tightened up and appear in table format in the main article, which itself could stand a bit of trimming. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artie (character)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title. WCityMike 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect What's wrong with a redirect? Due to our attribution system we can't delete pages when we merge content from them to another page, since the attribution history of the original page must remain intact. A redirect would preserve the article's history and allow for it to be merged into the list. Them From Space 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Kingsley[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title. WCityMike 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paula (character)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title. WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darlene Chapinni[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title. WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Capen[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title. WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil (character)[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title. WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Collins[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series. WCityMike 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Barnes[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series. WCityMike 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francine Sanders[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series. WCityMike 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PearCRM[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I have been unable to find any coverage at all. SPA editor. Haakon (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage, not even from the blogosphere. Not notable, or not notable yet. Google link search --Pnm (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an average product in several crowded fields, without any minimal showing of historical, technical, or cultural importance: ... project-management and customer relationship management tool. And every tiny little one thinks they rate an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This can be recreated if/when he meets WP:PROF, but the consensus is that, at present, he does not, nor is the IMO sufficent to pass WP:ATHLETE. Courcelles (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darij Grinberg[edit]

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

Contested prod. The article was deprodded on the grounds that the subject won a gold medal in the 2006 International Mathematics Olympiad. This does not automatically confer notability on the subject: roughly the top 10% of participants receive golds, and anyway as a high-school competition it would hardly seem to rise to the level of WP:ATHLETE. The only other evidence of notability is some triangle centers named after the subject in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers. I believe, per a comment made by User:David Eppstein, that this can be used as a source for articles, but not as a source for establishing notability, much like the OEIS. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grinberg introduced the term Blaikie point of O and g for the point Z of concurrence, and defined the S-Blaikie transform of O as the Blaikie point of O and OS; he has won two silver medals (2004, 2005) and one gold medal (2006) at the International Mathematical Olympiad; and additionally he was Bundessieger of the Bundeswettbewerb Mathematik four times. The subject is notable in my eyes. Inniverse (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that the subject flat out fails WP:PROF. So "introduc[ing] the term Blaikie point of O and g for the point Z of concurrence, and defin[ing] the S-Blaikie transform of O as the Blaikie point of O and OS" seem to be very questionable grounds for keeping the article. As for the mathematics competitions, the bar for notability is (or was at one time) quite high: the policy under which this falls is WP:ATHLETE. For some perspective, even the article Arthur Rubin, four time Putnam Mathematics Competition winner, was not generally regarded as notable enough on the strength of the subject's competition record. (And the Putnam is considerably more prestigious than either the IMO or the Bundeswettbewer.) Rather it was the Erdos number 1 of the subject, together with the outstanding Putnam record that ultimately tipped the scales in that case. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than just being a Erdos coauthor, Rubin's paper with Erdos on "Choosability in graphs" is a highly cited paper in the field. This most likely satisfies WP:PROF criterion #1, but even this is questionable. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school level awards do not confer academic notability, (see item 9 in 'Notes and Examples' in WP:PROF). MathSciNet shows only 4 publications by the subect, with no citations. Similarly scant citability data in GoogleScholar. According to his own website[29] he appears to be a graduate student. If he did introduce an important and broadly used new concept, he might qualify for satisfying Criterion 1 of WP:PROF, but that does not appear to be the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. None of the three triangle centers named after him in ETC shows up as the subject of a significant level of other research in Google scholar, so I don't think he can claim to have a notable concept named after him. I did find one paper "Grinberg triangles" by Deko Dekov in the Journal of Computer-Generated Euclidean Geometry but it seems to be self-published (Dekov's own journal) and in any case that's still not a significant level of other research. This is not close to the scholarly prominence expected for WP:PROF (unsurprisingly, as most of the WP:PROF criteria approximate something you would expect to see from a full professor at a good research university rather than someone who is still a student), and while the Olympiad gold is a significant accomplishment I don't think it is good enough by itself either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A gold medal at the Int'l Math Olympiad (is quite an achievement but) does not suffice, nor does his work as a mathematician (yet) provide him sufficient notability as an academic. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 00:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an academic (fails WP:PROF). Use of WP:Athlete to rule on IMO contestants is highly unorthodox, in spite of the name "olympiad".Arcfrk (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the four given references, two are primary and one doesn't say anything about the person. That is not suitable for a BLP and it does not hint at notability. Paul Carpenter (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. But with no prejudice against recreation if he later passes WP:PROF. Ozob (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add: WoS, GS, and plain Google are all unaware of the concepts of "Blaikie points" and "Blaikie transformations", so these are clearly not notable at the moment as the article would have us believe. WoS shows h-index of 0. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Sanders[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter. WCityMike 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One-sentence stub of non-primary character of long off-the-air series. WCityMike 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge all to List of The Larry Sanders Show charcters. Just withdraw the nom and do the merge, eh? Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Magician and the Legend of the Rings[edit]

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

Article asserts no notability whatsoever. There's no indication that this is a notable film. Sugar Bear (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the cast and crew in the article and infobox are redlinks, as is the author and director, and there is no mention of notability, popularity or awards recieved by the film. WackyWace ^talk 19:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A direct to video movie which was not covered in any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs sourcing elsewhere, but the official website asserts winning of 3 awards.
1. 'Best Feature Film', Kids Fest Film Festival
2. 'Best Youth-Oriented Narrative', BareBones International Film Festival
3. 'Best Make-Up Effects', Bare Bones International Film Festival
- If the festivals are major enough for direct-to-video children's films, then the winning of these awards would seem to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Setting aside the issue of whether the Bare Bones film festival is notable, I looked at IMDB. IMDB is not a reliable source, so this will have to be taken with a grain of salt, but I checked the Bare Bones 2002 award results listed there and makeup went to "Biohazardous". I actually checked every entry listed on IMDB for Bare Bones which runs from 2000 to 2009 and this movie isn't listed for any awards in any of those entries. The Festval's web site is on tripod and provides no list of past winners. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment - I've done some digging into claim #1 about the win at Kids Fest. I cannot even identify the actual festival this is supposed to be. A search for Kids Fest film festival turns up a dizzying array of results. Qualifying it with "max magician" turns up nothing useful. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the additional research. Had the awards been confirmable and notable, then this article might have had a chance. Your due diligence is commendable and most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of coverage and the awards being unsourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TV On The Radio. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Calculator[edit]

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

Record does not appear to be notable and did not appear to chart or win any awards or anything. Also, (which is how I stumbled on it )what is strange is all the individual song titles redirect to the article what links there, bit excessive for a not notable self released album. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Wikipedia:NMG#Albums. Group is highly notable, but AllMusicGuide and other sources don't even mention this in discography listings. TV On The Radio article already has a blurb about this album; the only thing this article adds is a photo and track listing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your rational, it says in the album notability that thae album itseldf must meent the general notability guidelines, this album and its citation clearly does not? Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to TV on the Radio. As the debut album of a clearly notable band, it would seem a shame to limit it to a brief mention in the band article, although there appears to be little coverage of the album itself. There is some coverage, e.g. a non-staff Sputnik Music review, David Sitek talking about the album in a Pitchfork interview, Washington Post article that talks about the album's contents, another Washington Post article with a paragraph about the album. Perhaps not enough to strictly meet notability criteria for a standalone article (although we could say more about it than a lot of albums that have articles here) but a merge to the band would either omit a lot of information or be messy, so I would favour keeping it.--Michig (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The album is not notable and there is very little information in the article. If there is anything interesting in the quotation from Tunde at the end of this article, it could easily be merged into the band's article. Rikat (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferran Lagarda Mata[edit]

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

possible crosswiki spam Esteban (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searches show that he fails PROF. Note to closing admin: if deleted, please also take care of the various redirects, see at the bottom of this list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crosswiki spam. --Ecemaml (talk) 09:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Xoacas (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. crosswiki spam, indeed--Maañón (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim-e-Inqilab Dost Muhammad Sabir Multani[edit]

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

speedy declined... *sigh*... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - ~~I think this easily falls into a G1 or an A1 speedy delete... take your pick~~ Pmedema (talk)
- Results are not that different. Fails WP:N and I still sort of feel it falls into an A1 when compairing the article name and the content. Could be considered a bit of a WP:COATRACK?

Have put this article up for speedy delete per A1. WackyWace ^talk 19:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the AfD-tag must stay. That's the procedure. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Its a very different article to the one I first saw. The version brought to AFD makes no sense to any of us, so I've restored the article to the version that was about a research institute and suggest that if that is deemed notable we rename the article to that - unless the current article name is the Urdu name for the institute? (I have no views on the notability or otherwise of alternative health organisations) Ϣere SpielChequers 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "research institute" does not appear to be notable either...it seems to be some sort of internet-based learning thing (relevant google search).-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:CORP; I cannot find any proof of its notability. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2nd studio album[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL Manway (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support deletion, with fire, fairly obviously, as I tried PRODding this article earlier today. I never know how to nominate anything properly, so my template simply got deleted. My notes on reasoning were these: Album with no name "due to be released in early 2011" from Irish independent band. Clearly fails WP:NALBUMS, even if it comes out some day. Not a single ref currently on article. Unsurprisingly little press coverage, since debut album came out just a couple months ago. Even the band's own Web site doesn't appear to hint at 2nd album. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I'm of the mindset that if an album is not named yet it probably shouldn't have an article. Also this album isn't planned for release untill 2011, and the article mentions the band hasn't even started recording it yet. --Deathawk (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to (a) failing Wp:CRYSTAL and (b) the following quotes from the article: It is not yet confirmed if the band have started recording their new material and (Tracklisting subject to change.). The name of the article also fails to specify who's album it is. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:CRYSTAL; until the album is released in 2011 and can be shown to be notable, I don't see why this article should be kept. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too much is uncertain and undecided, and there are no sources given. Loves Macs (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HAMMER plus it violates the naming conventions. How many artists are up to their untitled second studio album? You can't tell with the title given.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: even for an "untitled future album" type article, this one is particularly devoid of any verifiable information. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. There are some sensible suggestions for merging but the suggested target is HUGE so such a move would best be worked out on both talk pages. IMHO the most sensible thing to do is a straight redirect to List_of_Batman_enemies#Foes_of_lesser_renown but nobody has !voted for that and I don't like to do supervotes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Plunderer[edit]

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

Penny Plunderer is a non-notable minor Batman supervillain. Joe Chill (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I hope maybe he can be mentioned in one of the Category:Lists of Batman characters. Not as notable as the man who murdered Thomas and Martha Wayne, thus beginning the career of The Batman, although he was apparently the source of the "Giant Penny" (and perhaps the inspiration for other giant things I recall from Batman, including the giant cash register and the giant pool table). If there was a comic book analog for the WP:ONEEVENT rule, Joe Coyne would be the man. Mandsford 18:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to an appropriate list article (List of Batman Family enemies seems a suitable target). The number of comics appearances isn't an issue; the apparent lack of significant coverage in independent sources is. --Ibn (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Withdrawing my !vote. While not as certain of the topic's notability as Colonel Warden, his work on the article would seem to invalidate my rationale here. --Ibn (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into List of Batman Family enemies; not notable to merit its own article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not do-able. If you want the article merged, its history needs to be preserved. --Ibn (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like closes as "delete and then redirect" or "delete and then merge", and I think they're best avoided unless there's extremely problematic material in an earlier revision (such as a copyvio). In this case there's none. Deleting the history seems pointlessly vindictive to me. Restore to this revision of April 2008.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. I have added several citations including encyclopedic sources such as The encyclopedia of comic book heroes and The Essential Batman Encyclopedia‎. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per S Marshall and Colonel Warden, good justifications for keep especially encyclopedic references. 98.231.142.70 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rather hope the closer doesn't mistake my remark for a pure "keep".—S Marshall T/C 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the addition of sources, I cannot agree that every single entry in "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia", or everything mentioned in an article about Batman in "The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes" is notable enough to become its own Wikipedia article. As an analogy, there are encyclopedias and concordances that have articles about every person who ever appeared on television or film in the Star Trek franchise, but that doesn't make the character of, say, Bele, generally notable ("Bele", by the way, is the dude played by Frank Gorshin on that episode of Star Trek where there were the two guys whose face was black on one side and white on the other, and he has his own entry in the B-section of The Star Trek Concordance and The Star Trek Encyclopedia). That it is in a Batman encyclopedia is not general notability, and, going by WP:Notability (fiction), the description is purely in-universe, with no significance in the real world. Very few Batman characters would merit their own article. We don't have individual pages for minor fictional characters anymore, and they've been gradually migrating over to entertainment wikis like The Batman Wiki were intended to do. Mandsford 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're suggesting that that we should determine notability according to the personal tastes of editors such as yourself. This is not our policy nor should it be. Other projects are irrelevant - we are only concerned with this one here. And the real alternative here is List of Batman Family enemies but that has a peculiar title which is much harder to find if you're looking for a particular person such as our topic. And it is too large as editors are advised "This page is 97 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.". As Wikipedia is increasingly used on handheld devices with small screns, we should divide such bloated assemblages into small, well-formed articles like this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People viewing articles on handheld devices does not trump notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting no such thing. The point I'm relying upon is this from WP:Notability (fiction) : "Notability of fictional works and elements within should be based on their impact in the real world as opposed to what occurs within the work." Several (though not a lot) of the fictional villains in the world of Batman do have real world notability, such as the Joker, the Penguin, Catwoman, etc. Do you have anything you can cite to that shows (a) that the "Penny Plunderer" is notable outside of the comic itself or (b) that there is another specific policy that should apply? We each have our personal tastes, to be sure-- it's not just I-- but at least I have something to cite to. Mandsford 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (fiction) is a joke - the plaything of zealots like User:Gavin.collins. Most serious editors seem to have given it up as a bad job. Anyway, it has no status here as it has no consensus support. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is it you're citing as an alternative to what you describe as a joke? I think that more people would say that the silly days where Wikipedia had lots of individual articles about Pokemons and other minor characters from TV shows and comic books, but fewer about people who actually existed, is a worse joke. Seriously, an article about "The Penny Plunderer" because he is in "The Essential Batman Encyclopedia"? Should we have an article about anything listed here? Real persons at least have to satisfy a standard of some sort (WP:PEOPLE -- basically, "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field") -- and I don't know why something make believe should be excused from meeting any standard at all. Mandsford 16:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline which is generally followed is topics "that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources". This explicitly excludes "importance" as a criterion and so your disdain for this class of topics is just a personal opinion which we should discount because it is contrary to multiple policies. I have cited multiple independent works in which our topic has been noticed and so it is notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this isn't deleted, I agree that it should be merged or redirected. I am a huge fan of Batman and he is my favorite superhero, but that doesn't change the fact that not all of his enemies are notable. Creating articles on enemies just because they are in a Batman encyclopedia is stupid. The Batman encyclopedia that Colonel Warden talked about has a bunch of minor low level crooks and gangsters. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such merger or redirection would shuffle the material around to no purpose - a pointless labour which would not assist our readership in any way. It would be contrary to our sensible guideline about WP:SIZE and this is a strong reasons not to do this as bloated web pages have significant physical effects which make it difficult or impossible to read them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's your personal belief. Penny Plunderer still isn't notable. How can a guy that only faced Batman once and is only mentioned in encyclopedias that have to do with everything Batman or superhero everything notable? Non-notable things should be merged if possible. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it completely backwards. It is not my opinion that this topic is worthy of note. This is the opinion of the numerous independent, professional authors, editors and publishers who have produced material about this topic, as I have cited. My own view is not inserted here as I was unfamiliar with the details of this topic until I came across the AFD. Your opinion, on the other hand, is not based upon any independent evidence - it is purely an expression of your own personal distaste and so is contrary to our policies of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. And your argument that non-notable things should be merged if possible is also a fabrication of your own devising, not supported by any policy. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a reality show and you are not Simon Cowell or some viewer who is invited to vote upon whether you like an act or not. We require independent evidence here, not original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous? You pointed to two encyclopedia and I said how they don't prove notability. It's common practice to merge non-notable things if there is a merge target. "Please understand that Wikipedia is not a reality show and you are not Simon Cowell or some viewer who is invited to vote upon whether you like an act or not." Well, you obviously have a battleground mentality. By the way, my beliefs aren't POV and you're an ultra inclusionist that twists guidelines in your favor. Also, did you read WP:CENSOR? That policy is about Wikipedia articles possibly having offensive content such as porn. WP:OR is about original research in articles. The key words are to a significant degree. How is an encyclopedia with everything about Batman and an encyclopedia with everything about superheroes significant? Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline explains what is meant by significance: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.' In this case, sources have been presented which cover the topic in detail. This coverage is therefore significant. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:CENSOR, I have certainly read it. This concerns "objectionable" content - content which readers object to because of its nature. That's what you and Mandsford are doing here. Having an article about a Batman villain offends your sense of propriety and so you object to it. But personal tastes are not a sensible basis for determining content as they are too arbitrary: de gustibus non est disputandum. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't offend me. Why would having an article about a Batman villain offend me? I'm a huge Batman fan. It's just that this criminal is non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click on the Google book search. Not just in the comic book itself, but publications which are mostly text. [30] Plus mentioned in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia and The encyclopedia of comic book heroes, Volume 1‎. Coverage equals notability. That's the rules of Wikipedia. It has to either have coverage, or be notable for other reasons. Dream Focus 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is an encyclopedia with everything about Batman and an encyclopedia with everything about superheroes significant? Colonel Warden dances over the question so maybe you can answer it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage is there. It was seen as notable enough to include in there, so its notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia. That's how things work. And I doubt every single villain ever was included. With that series going on for decades, I doubt it'd all fit. Just those considered notable enough by the editorial staff. Dream Focus 00:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - He is also notable, since he is part of the story where the giant penny kept in the Bat Cave came from. [31] Dream Focus 00:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A possible merge and redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. The topic already being in other encyclopedias is a nice indicator that we might consider including the subject in some manner here as well. The encyclopedia of comic book heroes and The Essential Batman Encyclopedia‎ allow me a reasonable presumption that other sources exist, and initial results give such as AV Club... so we do have more with which to work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"You may have gotten away this time, Penny Plunderer, but one day you shall be brought to justice..." Mandsford 15:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Mandsford mentioned above, Penny Plunderer deserves a mention at least in a list of villains. It's also a reasonable search term to point readers to that list, wherever it may be. Accordingly, that means the title warrants being kept. Whether to merge the content into that list is not an issue for deletion; that's an issue for discussion on the talk page of the article and/or the targeted list, as MichaelQSchmidt noted above. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Batman enemies. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G6, uncontroversial maintenance. Tim Song (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Medina[edit]

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

Do we even need this disambiguation page? It disambiguates between a politician and a minor character from a soap opera who doesn't have her own article, just a redirect. It seems to me that deleting this disambig, moving the politicians article here, and a hatnote for the character's redirect would be a more elegant solution. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Walton[edit]

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

Prod'd, prod seconded by another editor, and then removed by a third, so here we are. Article is sourced by subject's own website, and appears to exist for the purpose of driving traffic thereto. Claims of notability rest upon having been commissioned to create art projects; there is an attempt to conflate commissions with awards. Bulk of the article written by SPA; see [32]. Can't find a notability standard that this person would qualify under. Heather (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Self aggrandizing article of non-notable individual. Agree with Heather that the only purpose seems to be to advertise his website. Noted original source material, as Heather previously mentioned, as well. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability. Also, blatant attempt at promotion.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Commissions by major public art organizations are awards. They are not like a private individual commissioning a painting. In the fields of media arts, public art, and performance (where there is no object for sale, and no object for a museum to collect) commissions and grants are the strongest indicator of an artists success, often even more important than their exhibition record (especially when they work in public, as Walton does.). Walton has been included in exhibitions at some of the major organizations dedicated to contemporary art: Performa is a the only biennial in the world dedicated to performance art; Creative Time is the leading organization creating new public art projects in New York City; The New Museum is the leading contemporary art venue in New York City, and Art In General is a very prestigious commissioning program. To put it all in another context, a quick search turned up five different articles discussing the artist's work from the New York Times alone: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]--Theredproject (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I wrote the original article and may have sourced some material from Walton's site, but that can be edited. It was originally a stub. It shouldn't be deleted, it just needs to be worked on. Walton is a leading contemporary artist - as noted in the comment above re: New York Times, New Museum, Creative Time, Performa, etc. I don't know the background of the other editors or what their knowledge of contemporary art is, so maybe that's some of the confusion. Keep. And everyone here add some to the article and cite more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronthego (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this entry again, somehow it has turned into a listed summary of his projects. I may have set that tone by describing a few in my original article. Of course, it needs to be more than a list. This article needs reworking, but it would be a shame if it was deleted. --Dronthego (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Lee Walton is a highly-regarded, groundbreaking artist. I worked for Rhizome when we commissioned his work, and it was indeed a commission, as described here. And readers might also want to peruse the Amazon page for the book & project commissioned by Art in General. Meanwhile, splitting hairs over exhibitions versus commissions is not as relevant as the fact that Walton's work has been recognized by numerous international arts organizations, museums, and academic institutions. This is quite notable, particularly as Walton's work is so interdisciplinary (combining performance, video, new media, and drawing) and is often immaterial or ephemeral, residing online or in variable media--thus making it difficult to commodify, categorize, document, or archive, which is why the artist's own web-based archive is a primary resource for information on his work. It seems to me the only problem with this article is that it needs to be massaged beyond stub stage, and that requires community effort. --Marisao (talk) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I seconded the prod, but the group exhibition reviews given by Theredproject weren't in the article. [38], [39], [40], [41] give sufficient coverage to justify an article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above material...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient evidence has been provided of sources to meet WP:N. Ty 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on references now provided.Sargentprivate (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. enough consensus on WP:N JForget 01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mandiberg[edit]

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

Contested prod. Heavily promotional; sourced by subject's own website. The article in Wired is a human interest piece that could have just as easily been about thousands of other non-notable individuals; it only notes that he is engaged in a long-distance relationship, not anything which might make him inherently notable. Heather (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Article seems to be about yet another self promoting non-notable individual. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly the article needs substantial cleanup, but notability is established by non-trivial coverage in Wired, a major national publication in the USA, plus approximately 21 news articles (per Google News Archives) and 14 books (per Google Books). Those sources are not used in the article yet, but they show that the article qualifies per WP:BIO. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Although the article is in need of cleanup, that alone does not merit deletion. Notability is present; by the general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think that Wired as well as the other sources listed in a Google search satisfies that criteria. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was not the subject of the Wired article--long-distance relationships were. He happened to have one, as do thousands of other non-notable people whose relationships the article could have just as easily profiled. Heather (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that's not quite accurate. The reason the Wired article discussed this particular long-distance relationship is that Mandiberg incorporated the details of his experience in a published work of Internet art, described by Wired as a "new-media project", that is his area of speciality from what I've read in researching this AfD. Mandiberg is on the faculty of City University of New York in the Dept of Media Culture, and his work has been displayed at the New Museum for Contemporary Art in New York City and elsewhere. Clearly, he's not a widely-known household name, but is notable enough that Wired did not choose him randomly, since his published work was directly relevant to their article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage by independent reliable sources not significant enough to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a significant artist with significant exhibitions. DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - full disclosure - I think (can't remember) I was the initial author of this page and I happen to have had RL contact with Mandiberg, so take this with a grain of salt. BUT he's clearly notable. He's a published author, he has press, he's been reviewed in journals, and a simple google search of his name will get you more http://www.google.com/search?q="michael+mandiberg" - the long-distance relationship project from 2001 is missing the point. He's notable whether you want to acknowledge that or not. Agreed with Jack-A-Roe, needs cleanup, update, and other work... but keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dronthego (talk • contribs) 03:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability standard. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample sources to meet WP:N etc. Ty 23:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are innumerable artists that have been published with small sources or are self published. This does not give them notoriety....Modernist (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Merlin_characters#Great_Dragon. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Dragon (Merlin)[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable minor character in a television program. No citations/references. Claritas § 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really a minor character. The article cites no published sources which explain the dragon's importance to us. And really, although I know this is a decidedly minority position, all a TV show needs is one article. If people are interested they will watch it and find out the details on their own. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New editor, and the first time contribution is appreciated. As characters go, this one would probably be considered a recurring member of the cast, and actor John Hurt was selected to voice him, and the advice-giving character is usually pretty important in a series. I won't say "keep", in that I think Wikipedia got out of hand with having articles about TV show characters, but I won't say delete either, since I don't really know how popular the Merlin (TV series) is. Mandsford 19:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the editor seems to be sincere in making a positive contribution. It's a bit unfair of me to use this space to bring this up, but I was just thinking what is Wikipedia going to look like 100 or 1,000 years from now? Will there be a couple of hundred thousand articles on substantial topics and billions on every episode and character from every movie and TV show ever made? Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More likely the former. I've only been here three years, Kitfoxxe, but it's a lot different of a place now than it was then in its nauseating WP:POKEMON days. There used to be a lot more individual TV episode and TV character articles (even for minor characters who made one appearance on a show-- we recently had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas Hollingsworth as an example). Even worse was that even the relatively fewer number of articles on substantial topics had idiotic pop culture references to The Simpsons and to Family Guy. As Wikipedia went from being a joke to the first stop on the Google search, a lot of that changed. When entertainment wikis came along, they provided a great place for the articles to migrate to. Will there be a Wikipedia 100 or 1,000 years from now? I'll be surprised, but it's one of the best things that ever happened for amateur writers like myself, so Jimmy Wales can have a donation every year when he asks me for one. Mandsford 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant role for the major actor John Hurt with coverage and reviews in the New York Times, The Times, The Stage, Hollywood Reporter, &c. Of course, the coverage is usually set in the context of the overall production and so we might consider merger or other restructuring. But that is just ordinary content editing with no need nor necessity for deletion. Per our editing policy we should build upon this contribution rather than deleting it. We might, for example, merge with List of Merlin characters#Great Dragon which has lots of text but not one citation to back any of it up, unlike the article before us. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on TV series. Deb (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a plausible search term - is page history worth conserving ? Claritas § 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already sufficiently covered at List_of_Merlin_characters#Great_Dragon per WP:NOT#PLOT, so no merger needed. There is no non-trivial real-world information currently present to justify a WP:SPINOUT. Not a plausible title for redirection, except for a dab page, but then a new redirect can be created after deletion if necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect -- already covered adequately in the main article, which is more than a mere list. NOT PLOT, however, has nothing to do with it, as that policy only affects the overall coverage of a work of fiction--no more detailed wording has ever had consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: main article is fine. this needs something other than plot and should be merged in the meantime. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of musicals[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY ttonyb (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a perfectly fine list with clear inclusion criteria. However, better articles already exist here, so this really needs redirecting to it. Lugnuts (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Lugnuts points out, better articles already exist, and I would be surprised if there's anything here that isn't already on one of those lists. I appreciate the ambition involved in seeking to make a complete list of musicals, but it's a bigger task than the author imagines. Just on Broadway alone there have been thousands of musicals that have come and gone over the years. Mandsford 19:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lugnuts Polarpanda (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content is already provided at fully worked out articles. if we had no lists of musical already, this would be unacceptable as is. title is wrong, lead is wrong, no links, no references. probable search term, so redirect. if the author thinks any of these musicals are NOT on the established lists, they can add them. I admire the work put into it, but didnt the creator guess that someone before today just MIGHT have created, say, a List of musicals?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crummy duplication of already existing article(s). Given title can never be accurate, thus it's an unlikely search term.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this what CSD A10 is for? Anyway, delete per above as duplicating existing material with an inaccurate article title. Them From Space 19:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SPEEDY, "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." Mandsford 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirecting. We already have appropriate lists of musicals, but none of them are complete. Redirecting would be misleading. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content commerce[edit]

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

This article was created three years ago by an account with no other edits, and seems to be a pet concept of said editor. It has zero references, is fairly meandering, and doesn't really have a point, except something vaguely related to multimedia and the internet. It also hasn't been touched much since it was created, despite numerous tags. I can't figure out how this is notable on its own. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially just a duplicate of e-commerce, and contains a lot of original research. Claritas § 13:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete. not notable, not verifiable - I did a few searches for sources and did not find any at all. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline patent nonsense: it's just a bunch of patter that doesn't say anything: Content commerce is the transaction of any form of content using online trasnfer. This includes, but is not limited to direct sale, spread term sale, syndication, subscription, video on demand, bidding, placement listing, voting, pay-per-view, photos, licensing, agents, ticketing, access to information, and online participation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I wanted to speedy delete this, but wasn't sure if it would qualify. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhawarna[edit]

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

Very little information and no references whatsoever. I'd speedy tag it if there was one that is appropriate for this Treylander 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has two references and is a valid stub. Consensus is to generally keep verified settlements, which this now is. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm still torn on city/town's inherent notability. I was able to find the postal code info and Catal found another reference which I find legitimate. It's verifiable and verified. OlYeller^Talktome 01:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indian topics are always tough because there's frequently not a lot of information on the net in English and in Latin characters. Towns are inherently notable due to the presumption that sources exist, whether it be government or other records.--Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo Newman[edit]

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

Does not meet the ARTIST guidance. Searching through Google News, there is one story on 20/21 May 2010 that mentions this artist in relation to a charity event. There are no results in Google Books. There seems little prospect for future improvement. Though there was only the artist's website as a source, WP:BLPPROD rejected, hence raising for further discussion. Fæ (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A more specific search ("Dodo Newman" +plexiglass) shows very few hits. The original creation was a cut and paste from the artist's website which is now removed (google cache) so the article is probably autobiographical. No sign of any 3rd party reliable sources. --Triwbe (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More self promotion. No references. Stub length. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Antonio Rodriguez[edit]

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

No indication that the person has competed at a notable level. See also [42] Eldumpo (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax. I can't find any evidence that this guy even exists, let alone passes notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Mediotiempo.com has no record of such a person ever playing for Pumas (nor being a "revelation during the 2006 season"). Jogurney (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DogsBlog.com[edit]

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

Delete. Contested PROD. Non-notable website. Note that I have PRODded the related magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the original author of the article. Nominator has failed to notice citations from a UK daily newspaper. Meets notability requirements and I have taken care to ensure there is no uncited information on the page. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I listed it for deletion there were two refs from The Sun (newspaper). That is hardly a reliable source for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does claim that they have rehomed over 6000 dogs - I'm no dog expert but I imagine that's notable. I think the fact the article has been featured in Did you know (see talk page) makes it notable. However, I'm not overly sure it justifies an article here. WackyWace ^talk 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to use the notability guidelines set by WP rather than any sort of claim in the article itself of notability. Six billion dogs would be notable!!! WP:WEB is a good place to start in order to determine whether this blog is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Virtually all of the article refs are tied to K9 Magazine. This article is spam in all but name. I have put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The number is irrelevant. Article meets criteria #1 under Wikipedia:Notability (web). Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with assertions by Alan Liefting. Wiki should not be used to promote blogs, either. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Weak Keep Article is much improved since last viewed. Sourcing looks better. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares (I left my delete comment, but disregard, this will supercede...[reply]

I would ask that you visit the website or at least read the article as it's not a blog, it simply uses the term blog to sound catchy and memorable. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not promotional. The promo speedy was even declined. --Savonneux (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have now replaced several of the previous references with more independent sourcing. Prior to this AFD I was unaware of any connection between K9 Magazine and DogsBlog itself. The remaining K9 Magazine references only reference the 3000th, 4000th and 6000th dogs rehomed. Miyagawa (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Keep Based on the recent improvement in the sources.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic meets WP:GNG as it's been covered in two major national newspapers and some special-interest journals. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taya Uddin[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Very scant mentions in a couple of websites confirm the subject has done photography work, but that is it. No reliable sources confirm the article's claims to notability. Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google links above give no sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. Nice photos though. Qwfp (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think this was actually ready to have the BLPPROD removed: I've removed one reference (devolution magazine) as it made no mention to her and therefore did not actually support the claim, and the other reference is a blog, which is not reliable (and the only mention of her in this blog is to attribute the photos to her). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I went back and forth on removing the BLPprod but for me the clincher was getting this deleted in 7 days rather than 10. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may snow before then. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it does seem verifiable that this person is a published photographer, this in itself doesn't meet GNG. I couldn't find any hint of independent coverage of this BLP topic by secondary sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone shows me some coverage that didn't get picked up on GNews (where there were zero hits). This might be possible, as I'd have thought the most likely coverage would be in trade press which won't necessarily be online. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Giftiger. No evidence of significance or notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this photographer. Joe Chill (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close - This is a redirect, and should be listed at WP:RFD for attention. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walking Through White Darkness[edit]

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

Insignificant EunSoo (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect. I don't know what it means for a redirect to be insignificant, but at any rate it should be discussed at WP:RFD instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely Confused I've gotten into it before when redirects where they intentionally misdirect traffic or needed to be replaced with a disambiguation page. I'm baffled by this approach though. If you really think this alternate film name from Korean is inappropriate, I'd take it up in the discussion tab of the actual article where you're the most likely to encounter people who know the subject (although the WP:RFD reference above is technically correct. Unless deleting this page will bring you internal peace, in which case knock yourself out kid.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 1 "incubate" suggestion. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric Jupiter[edit]

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

This seems to be a borderline neologism. A google search of "eccentric jupiter" returns 42 hits, most of which are not used in the manner of "eccentric Jupiter" as a term, but rather "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet" or something similar. For this reason, an exact definition does not seem to exist. The article uses e > 0.1 as the dividing line, but I was unable to find anything backing that up. Without any significant usage of the term or a clear definition, I do not think it should be an article. James McBride (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
incubate - "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet" is exactly what this is talking about. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In comparing "eccentric Jupiter" as a term and "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet," I just meant that eccentric performs the same modification it does for anything in an orbit, and there is nothing special about "eccentric Jupiter" taken together. Maybe I did not really express the thought well, but my point was there is no need for an article that defines the combination of those things when the definition of the first part and the definition of the second say what this article says. There is an article about eccentricity and an article about Jovian planets, and if someone is unsure of what "eccentric Jupiter-like planet" means, they would probably be served better by looking at the article on orbital eccentricity and on Jovian planets than they would be by looking at this article. James McBride (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah. However, the article makes the point that such an object can prevent the formation of a habitable planet - something neither "eccentric" nor "Jovian planet" deals with. One the third-hand, it is probably something that an eccentric planet smaller than a Jupiter would also prevent. Hrm.... maybe this should be merged into planetary formation or something like that. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I agree, the point about inhibiting formation (or at least stability) of a habitable planet would belong in the article on planet formation. James McBride (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: search for "eccentric Jupiters" gave 645 google hits. I think it is a rare term rather than a neologism, and the name is not yet stabilized so that we won't know whether it ends up in "eccentric Jovians". Now, AFAIK, the "eccentric Jupiters" came up as a surprise when exoplanets were first discovered, the astronomers having expected the first planets to be like Jupiter with near-circular orbits. "Eccentric Jupiters" was an enigma, and the current theories explaining and distinguishing "eccentric Jupiters" from "normal Jupiters", is that the "eccentric Jupiters" are a result of a solar globule with a more massive proto-planetary cloud than the solar globules from which "normal Jupiters" emerge. The more massive proto-planetary cloud causes heavier planets causing an unstable jovian system, which "decays" into systems with "eccentric Jupiters" and "episolar Jovians/Jupiters" whatever. The term is believed to be a natural kind, and natural kinds are anti-neologisms, they existed before the existence of humans, much more so before the existence of Wikipedia. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or I should say: WP:PALEOLOGISM. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three usages documented on talk page. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though you found a few sources, none of them give any definition of the term, or any hint that the term carries any special meaning beyond a Jupiter that is eccentric. It seems to me that a term requiring an article should have definition beyond the meaning of the two terms separately, or why have an article for it at all? James McBride (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking of one term, not two terms, so I don't understand what you refer to. Terms are substantive constructs, in this case a noun with an adjective, defining a concept within a science or technology. My links was for providing examples of scientific usage, and to provide a basis for enhancing the article. The article should survive on the reason that it reflects a natural kind based term, not a WP:NEO. The links provided indicate that it is a natural kind based term, especially spaceref.com indicating that metallicity is a non-definition factor correlated to the solar systems producing eccentric jupiters. The intention behind catching WP:NEOs is mostly to catch word constructs that have no real meaning except an ephemeral shortlived slogan. When scientific correlations can be found with a category and a non-definition-related factor (in philosophy called an "accidental" quality), then we have a reason to believe that it is something real. The something real behind the wording of Eccentric Jupiters makes the article viable, even if the naming of the article might change. Or to put it another way: "eccentric Jupiters" are not just "Jupiters" that are "eccentric", they emerged for other reasons that "normal Jupiters did", and they occurred for similar reasons that the "hot Jupiters" aka "epistellar Jupiters" did. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be pedantic. My meaning was clear. The press release does not constitute strong evidence to me that these are a "natural kind" as you keep claiming. In fact, it says that the relation between forming planets by core accretion in a metal rich disk and eccentric gas giants is unclear. You can verify yourself at [43] that there is no clear correlation between metallicity and eccentricity. Moreover, I am unaware of any refereed article since that claims that planet formation via core accretion in a massive disk should be more likely to produce eccentric gas giants, though I imagine if you can dig hard enough you can find one. I think it is safe to say there is no consensus though, with papers as recent as 2008 [44] noting that the eccentricity distribution remains poorly understood. Finally, where do you draw the line between an eccentric Jupiter and a "normal" one? Maybe if we could track every planet from its formation to today, we might be able to split them up in to natural kinds based on formation mechanism and subsequent evolution, but how do we look at a planet now with an eccentricity of 0.09 and say that it belongs to one class and a planet with an eccentricity of 0.11 and say that it belongs to another definitively? That argues against any observational classification of eccentric Jupiters as assigning them to their natural kind. That doesn't even seem particularly important to me, by the way, but you have placed great emphasis on it being a natural kind, but the evidence for that is very incomplete. James McBride (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oh, as for "pedantic" why are we discussing this here, and why are your postings as long as mine? Since you speak of two terms instead of one, since you refer to a neologism where I claim there isn't one, I tried to make it reasonable to believe that here is instead a natural kind, not a WP:NEO, I tried to dissolve some apparent confusions of "term" vs arbitrary substantive cluster and WP:NEO vs natural kind. In order for an AfD to "succeed" one have to apply and "prove" 3-4 conditions from WP:DEL, example in Infinity of Heaven (future article from dead author). Here is one condition that is (not yet?) successfully applied. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said there was no need to be "pedantic," I simply meant the fact that you felt the need to define "term" when I incorrectly applied it to "eccentric" and "Jupiter" when used separately. As for the rest of your point, I was simply trying to show that there is little to no existing evidence that it is a natural kind, which I think is a reasonable response. As for satisfying 3-4 conditions in order to be deleted, I was completely unaware, having never been involved in AfD before. I just kept coming across links to eccentric Jupiter, which I found frustrating since the article is misleading and unsourced. My first instinct was to try to improve it, but upon finding meager evidence for an established meaning beyond "gas giant in an eccentric orbit," AfD seemed the best course of action. James McBride (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oh, this is not a peer review, nor a discussion page about the philosophy of science, nor the reality of eccentric Jupiters. This AfD is a list of statements for or against the existence of the article Eccentric Jupiters and whether. You trying to shoot hole in my argumentation does not belong to here, since this is not an academic arena, but instead a librarians consensus system. In my imagination, the solar systems giving rise to epistellar and eccentric Jovians "might" be a case for the article not being a WP:NEO, a "might" is enough for WP:NEO being in doubt. That should be enough, discussing the factuallity here is out of context, that should be performed on a net forum somewhere, this is a forum for construction of an encyclopedia, not a scientific discussion. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and I'm still awaiting your response on your user talk page, so that I can explain how to succeed in removing articles... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge—There appear to be enough scientific journal articles that use the expression "eccentric Jupiter" (or some variant thereof) that it deserves some form of coverage. However, none of them capitalize 'eccentric'. Hence, the word 'eccentric' is used as an adjective rather than a proper noun and the capitalization should be removed from the article. Personally I'm not particular as to whether it is covered here or merged into a related article.—RJH (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it is used as an adjective seems to me to support it not having its own article, and is more or less the point I was trying to make above. Some of the material should certainly be merged, but that eccentric is used to modify Jupiter or Jovian does not seem like a good basis for having an article. There are also instances of "eccentric hot Jupiter" being used, which I would also argue does not merit its own article. James McBride (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could probably develop a single, solid article on Jupiter-like planets, beginning with a merge of the useful material in Hot Jupiter, Eccentric Jupiter and Jovian planet#Extrasolar gas giants (and maybe "puffy planet" too :).—RJH (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge—It may have some use even though the term is not much different than Hot Jupiter. But most(?) Hot Jupiters have low eccentricities. I'm not sure the definition of an "eccentric Jupiter" is any more poorly defined than the definition of a "puffy planet". -- Kheider (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had vague plans of putting up a few other articles at AfD, such as puffy planet, pending the way the AfD for eccentric Jupiter proceeded. Most gas giants on eccentric orbits are actually not hot Jupiters. In contrast with this article though, hot Jupiter is a term with a clear definition, and the term also has some meaning beyond the basic idea that it is a Jupiter that is hot. James McBride (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would recommend try an AfD or a merger request with that one, even if this AfD fails, since to me it seems much more unclear that a puffy planet is a natural kind. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how Hot europa turns out. (Yikes.) I did try to improve puffy planet back in March by calling it what it is. -- Kheider (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - taking a look at the mass-period diagram for exoplanets shows two major groupings of extrasolar giant planets: the hot Jupiters (periods less than about 10 days) and a second group at periods exceeding about 100 days, exhibiting a wide range of eccentricities, with a sparsely-populated region of the mass-period diagram separating the two groups. Therefore it seems like a good idea to have some discussion of this second population of giant planets if we've got an article specifically about the hot Jupiters. On the other hand I guess it may be open to debate what the best name for this population of planets is: eccentric giants or eccentric Jupiters seem to be in circulation, despite the fact that this population extends to near-circular orbits at the low-eccentricity end of the distribution. Icalanise (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Willson[edit]

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

WP:N and few rs. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Wolfe and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Pheister. mono 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I don't think this meets WP:N. Also, the article claims that 'controversy surrounds' the station, but this seems to have very little to do with Willson as a person. WackyWace ^talk 10:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here, or obviously available, that demonstrates notability. Nuttah (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Pheister[edit]

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

WP:N and few rs found. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Wolfe. mono 04:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No outside refs given to indicate any notability, and no particular indication given in the article either. A man doing a job. Peridon (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A man has a job. Good for him. Nothing here which satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of independent sources required for WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dreyer Farms[edit]

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

~~Of local interest only. Non-notable. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Only notability is winning some local "hero" award. Slim referencing as well. mono 04:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lack of references is a reason to add them, not delete an article. The findsources above offers possibilities for expansion and further improvement of this stub.[45][46]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a run of the mill produce company, and not a particularly notable one. AniMate 07:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "A lack of references is a reason to add them" - yes, OK. References for what? No particular indication of notability to make me rush to find references. If anyone has more to add, then please do. Peridon (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two Dreyer brothers working there were interviewed for a news article [47] and Google news search shows other results from that news source, as well as one thing from the New York Times, which announces a a four-course dinner hosted there benefiting the Queens County Farm Museum [48]. The museum thought it a notable farm to choose. They've been around for over a century, so that adds to their notability. Dream Focus 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11, advertising) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bankruptcy attorneys, PLLC[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG No references to support notability. Wintonian (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article again I notice the link the the companys web site, so I have asked for speedy. --Wintonian (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — As above; close AfD when deleted. mono 04:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fama's Nursery & Landscaping[edit]

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

~~Not a notable topic, spam. Not an important company Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep One of New Jersey's oldest retail nurseries. Suitable stub. Properly sourced. Works for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of New Jersey's oldest retail nurseries, but not the oldest. This seems to be a particularly thin claim to notability. AniMate 07:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AniMate. Why wasn't this simply tagged for Speedy? Peridon (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Joseph Green[edit]

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

~~No indication that this preacher was influential in the "New Thought Movement," or was one of its leaders. Non-Notable. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:NN, per nom. mono 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article makes no assertion that this person was "influential", and whether he was or not is historical POV and irrelevent as long as the article is sourced and meets WP:GNG. Stub will benefit from expansion.[49] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no assertion of notability. He existed and apparently published a 14 page book. AniMate 07:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many books written about the New Thought Movement and his beliefs, mention him. [50] He was part of the council of five. [51] Dream Focus 14:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Benedict Cushing[edit]

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

~~Patently non-notable. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and further expand. Even the New York Times source in the article called her a "leader in Arts". Sad that in death one's notability comes to the fore.[52][53] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, and minimal coverage in sources. AniMate 07:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This content belongs in Betsey Cushing Roosevelt Whitney#The Cushing Sisters for the moment, where this lady is already mentioned (as "Minnie Cushing", but it's the same person), but not properly sourced. Merge and redirect to that place. By the way, in mentioning "no assertion of notability", AniMate seems to have confused what's needed to pass CSD A7 with what's needed to pass AfD. At AfD, you don't just have to assert notability, you have to prove it. Michael Q. Schmidt might have done that with his links above, but don't think we need to consider that, because at present there's insufficient sourced material available for a separate article to be written. The reliable source does need to be preserved, so the outcome must be merge.—S Marshall T/C 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google news search shows the Los Angeles Times mentioning her as "Mary Benedict Cushing, one of the three famous Cushing sisters from Boston." Well, if a major newspaper says she's famous, then she's famous. Google book search shows a lot of hits about her, and not just because of her famous father. Dream Focus 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton (reverend)[edit]

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

~~Articles makes no allegation of anything notable this person did. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and expand stub through 65 book results.[54] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Appears to be a run of the mill chaplain who happened to have a famous relative. AniMate 07:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book mentions are of Reverend Alexander Hamilton Vinton and Reverend Alexander Hamilton Webster. This guy doesnt seem notable.--Savonneux (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently notable for longevity (he "was ordained in 1870. He is chaplain of the New York Society of the Cincinnati") but not for much else. Peridon (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey On-Line[edit]

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

~~Not a notable website, spam. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Absolute Poppycock Bad-Faith Punk-Ass Nomination: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ocean_Mystic_Researcher.--Milowent (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New Jersey On-Line gets news coverage from 1986 through 2009.[55] NJ.com gets news coverage from 2000 through 2010.[56] Stub needs expansion, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of this company is minimal at best and the article is unreferenced. AniMate 07:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cooper Nott, Jr.[edit]

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

~~Judges that are not on the high court are not notable. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The court he served on appears to have been, at the time, the state criminal trial court in New York County (Manhattan). [57] State trial judges are not presumed to be notable just by virtue of that position; articles about them need to establish notability by some other means. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "State" judge or not, the individual meets notability through WP:GNG... and for someone born in 1869, that works for me. Stub needs expansion per available sources.[58][59]
Delete Metropolitan90 sums this up quite nicely, and disagree that he passes GNG. AniMate 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard Farms[edit]

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

~~Obscure company, no reason given why it merits an article, and spam. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet stricken. NW (Talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company written up in New York Times. Must not be quite as "obscure" as nominator presumes. Stub will benefit from expansion, not deletion.[60] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a run of the mill vegetable producer with no assertion of notability given. AniMate 07:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surveyor-Hunveyor Mathematica demonstrations[edit]

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

Not a notable topic: this looks like a school report. St Anselm (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, possible COI, no reliable sources. -- Radagast[Special:Contributions/Radagast3|3]] (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Possible A11, if CSD could agree to A11. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be notes from a field trip. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunveyor Husar planetary analog field trips. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Adventurers[edit]

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

Another editor's prod was contested, so here we are. Enid Blyton is certainly notable, and if someone wants to write articles about every one of her hundreds of books, a good argument could be made for keeping them all. These, however, are not exactly Enid Blyton books. This is a recent "series" confected by taking old Blyton non-series works—Holiday House (1955), The Boy Next Door (1944), Hollow Tree House (1945), etc. (see Enid Blyton bibliography)—which originally had no characters in common, and "editing" (i.e., extensively rewriting) them to feature a common set of ~~characters~~ protagonists. I can find no evidence of any treatment of this project in reliable, independent sources that would allow the topic to satisfy the requirements of WP:BK. Deor (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As admitted by the nom, any book credited as written by Enid Blyton is notable. This series of books by (arguably) the world's most notable children's author is no less notable because they have been updated and re-published posthumously. Inniverse (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NB: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable" Colonel Warden (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is a summary article for a series, but I do not consider her sufficiently important to qualify for "historically significant". Handling things that way multiplies entries beyond reason. I'm an inclusionist, but not a splitist (unless fissionist or fracturist or atomist would be a better word.) DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians have always had disdain for her work or perhaps it's that she's not so well known in America. Anyway, please see The nice, the naughty and the nasty which tells us that she is the third most translated author in the world, coming behind only Lenin and the Bible. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep - despite my hatred for Enid Blyton, I can see the case for having an article on a series (not for the individual books, mind you) by the "third most translated author" as Colonel Warden so rightly pointed out. The fact that they were later "updated" and compiled is kitsch, but doesn't change the notability, as they were still in some sense authored by her. Claritas § 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the nomination, but I'd like to emphasize that this series, qua series, is not Blyton's work. She never wrote a series called The Young Adventurers; nor did she write one featuring "Nick and Katie, the two twins". Deor (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were clear in your nomination, but it is not relevant to this discussion. Agatha Christie never wrote a book called And Then There Were None, but it is still a notable novel even if it has been re-packaged and re-published under a different title. Inniverse (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not extensively rewritten to feature a different cast of characters. Deor (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments against notability are going nowhere. As another example, virtually all of the Conan (books) were extensively rewritten from the original published texts by Robert E. Howard, even the characters (pirates and cowboys into Conan) and genres (westerns to sci-fantasy) were changed to fit the series. Credit for writing was still given to R. E. Howard, and all of these books are notable. Inniverse (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunveyor Husar planetary analog field trips[edit]

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

This is a school report! St Anselm (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a report on a field trip and not an encyclopedia article. This is a copy of [61] and so may be a copyvio although I suspect that the author of this article is also the author of the web page. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic description of college project. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sizeable amounts of unverified, unoriginal sourcing. Also of dubious notability. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. Almost all of his 52(!) references are to his own blog. The "EMI album deal" he refers to is referenced from his blog as well. I suspect there would be a statement from EMI directly if he had been signed to anything. Subject appears possibly to be notable, but it is difficult to tell if it is legitimate due to mostly original sourcing. Needs independent verifiable sources to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete Google doesn't show that this subject is notable at all. Netalarmpoke 04:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaqphule (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. Snow keep, overwhelming opinion in favor of keeping. The article is not just about the word but also the title and cultural background - any incomplete coverage should be dealt with by expansion, not deletion. Dcoetzee 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady[edit]

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

This is a good example of why WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a good policy. As a modern American the word "lady" means something like "an upper-class (or at least respectable) woman." However the article is not about upper-class or respectable women. It is about the word "lady", in violation of the basic principle of "not a dictionary." The fact that the same word can mean many things to many people is another point to consider, and a part of the cause of the weakness of the article, although I'm sure the editors did their best. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse Please don't WP:CANVASS. [62],2 --Cybercobra (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You would not find all this in a dictionary. Why don't you nominate Lord as well? Blatant sexism. The article is about the concept (or really, several different concepts), not the word, and certainly belongs in an encyclopedia. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopedia article should be about only one concept at a time, not several. Powers ^T 02:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sexism? LOL, if he had tried to delete lord you could have said the same thing! Please point out the policy that relates to sexism.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. If the article leans too much towards dictionariness, that can be amended through editing. Nominator hasn't explained why this is an irredeemably unencyclopedic topic, only that the article perhaps focuses too much on dictionary-like stuff. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is already an article woman which is about ladies and other women. And yes I notified editors that might be interested, including every editor of the article who made more than one edit in 2010 (except the ones without a user name only a number, whatever that's called) and the editors on the talk page of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary because they will also be interested. (This was suggested by the WP:AFD page.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The page advises that biased canvassing is strongly discouraged. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that editors active on the WP:NOTDICT talk page would be more likely to favor your point of view in this discussion. decltype (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the list he notified he appears to have done this correctly, sending to the contributors to that page isn't biased. If anything it's biased against, it's usually full of people trying to change the policy to allow them to include their favourite words.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can post on a relevant Wikiproject or contact those who have participated in the article being nominated(there is a bot that does that automatically now). It is canvassing to contact people from a policy page, as this was done. People who don't want this type of article to exist, were contacted to tell them where one was at so they could go and post their predictable delete votes. Dream Focus 13:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you would have a case if the votes from his call resulted in all deletes, but as it is, in practice, I think you're just failing to assume good faith.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I second Rjanag's point that the article could possibly benefit from a copyedit; as my involvement with this article has been tangential it would be presumptuous of me to point out specific problems. However, the article goes into much more depth than a mere definition and should be kept in some form. Tiderolls 02:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article appears to be about the usage of the word "lady" in different times and cultures and not a strict definition of the word itself. The referencing is weak with one entry, but it is the encyclopedia britannica, public domain, so it is solid. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
- Usage is also the within domain of a dictionary, just like definitions. Powers ^T 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost completely only usage in dictionaries, even their definitions are defining how the term is used, whereas encyclopedia definitions are precising definitions to point out the class of things they're covering.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. Kit, you say there is "already an article woman which is about ladies and other women". This article isn't about ladies and other women. That's why it exists. If we deleted it and had to rely on Wiktionary for lady we would be denying much valuable information from readers. Moriori (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is indeed atrociously dictionarish, but the subject is notable as the female counterpart of both Lord and Gentleman. (Actually we should probably have Lady (nobility) and Lady (society) or something, since an article should cover only one topic, and this covers several.) Powers ^T 02:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea, unless it gets far larger. The idea is the same, but it has spread wider across society as time goes on. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to group things together in encyclopedias; in fact it's a really good idea because it helps you compare and contrast. It's when you don't do that that an encyclopedia tends to become more or less just a very verbose dictionary with an article per definition.- Wolfkeeper 03:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you should never do is group them by the words, always by their actual real-world nature; so this article shouldn't include lady bugs or something ghastly- i.e. just because of the word lady in the name.- Wolfkeeper 03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've edited this in the past. The article is and is not "about the word 'lady'"; it's about a particularly complicated set of social class and gender role issues, that have been poured into the word "lady" because that's the way language-equipped humans organize our ideas. You could read the article as an extended usage guide; but in its current form it contains information too complex for Wiktionary. ("Wikipedia is not a dictionary", among all our policies, has always struck me as particularly philosophically naive. Every article about a subject humans have named and categorized, from honour to aliphatic, is "about a word". Words do not exist in nature; they are all linguistic tokens. Every Wikipedia article is about a word; wikifying external referents is beyond the software's current capabilities.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no!!. So you're to blame then? Look, the article rocket isn't about the word rocket it's about things with flamey stuff coming out, and there's different words for it in different languages. The article rocket is about the things with flamey stuff, not the English word 'rocket', or its equivalent in other languages. Got it?- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I've put rocket in my salad without it catching fire, or blasting off into the empyrean. Maybe I'm not using enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem so very confused. The rocket article does not cover salad. Encyclopedias group things together into articles based on what they are, not the words used to refer to them.- Wolfkeeper 03:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can certainly understand the concern that the proposer has with the article. The article is littered with the term 'lady' in quotation marks to emphasise that it's talking about the term, rather than the idea of a lady. However, the article claims in the intro to be about the general idea, rather than the term, and while the body is rather badly written so as to mention the term almost throughout, this seems to be mostly cosmetic, and it can IMO be reasonably easily corrected to use the word lady to indicate the topic, rather than use it to talk about the usage and history of the term 'l' + 'a' + 'd' + 'y'. Therefore:
Keep per my above comment, but it needs a thorough going over to edit away the constant references to the term itself.- Wolfkeeper 02:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Having looked at it more carefully, there's an absolute and complete lack of encyclopedic content. Not a single sentence. The article consists entirely of etymology.- Wolfkeeper 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An absolute and complete lack of encyclopedic content, despite it coming from the Encyclopedia Britannica? Dream Focus 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, surprisingly. Print encyclopedias don't always get it right either, although they're much more consistent.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you are right, but the encyclopedia company is wrong? Dream Focus 01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you really think that an encyclopedia company is infallible?- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since a major long established encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britannica has professional fact checkers and an editorial staff, they are as infallible as it gets. Since Wikipedia says if its covered in a notable printed encyclopedia, its notable enough to have an article here, I'd say the presented rationale from those who wish to delete it are quite fallible. When the Wikipedia was young, they took articles from the out of copyright version of this encyclopedia, to fill thousands of articles with. Dream Focus 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL. The actual studies that are linked from Wikipedia found that the rate of serious errors in EB and the Wikipedia were non zero and not too dissimilar.- Wolfkeeper 02:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic appears to be sufficiently encyclopedic. Now, it should probably be sourced better, since the only source used is the 1911 EB, but I don't see flaws that warrant deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does a lot more than offer a mere definition of the word. I agree that more encyclopedic content could be added, but deletion is not a reasonable response. Netalarmpoke 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no it doesn't. I don't think I can find an entire sentence that isn't simply about explaining how a term is used. There's no encyclopedic content here at all.- Wolfkeeper 06:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I meant that it offers a lot more than a basic dictionary definition of the word. It goes into depth about the usage, history, etc of the word. I understand that such content is still "dictionary-ic?", but it offers much more information than other dictionaries. Still, providing more encyclopedia content would be an easy fix for this article, so there's no need to delete it. Netalarmpoke 01:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely a dictionary definition wiht no possibility of expansion. Appears to fail WP:NOTDICT, and while Wikipedia aims to be more than a regular encyclopedia, I find it telling that other encyclopedias do not have an entry for "lady" itself, but it is covered heavily in dictionaries; transwiki to Wikitionary -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The disambig page for "lady" shares where to find some of the many different uses for the word. Following, we have here a nicely encyclopdic explanation of the term "Lady" with Etymology and usage, British usage, and social usage. With respects to the nominator, and agreeing that yes... while Wikipredia is not a dictionary, a dictionary usage would look like THIS or THIS. What we instead have here is much more than such a simple dictionary definition, and is presented in a manner so as to improve the project and our readers' understanding of the term in context to its use toward Nobility, its history, its entymology, and its usage. It should be remembered, that "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject"... and that such articles should provide other types of information about that topic as well." In this case, those caveats are met. What it needs is additonal sources, yes... but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This seems to be a frivolous drive-by contrary to our deletion policy. Insofar as the article is based upon content from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the nomination seems absurd. And redlinking a commonplace word like this would not be a sensible outcome. And poking lots of editors such as myself to come and discuss the matter here seems to be disruption in the manner of J. Wellington Wimpy, "Let's you and him fight". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite apart from its (admittedly etymological) rich historical evolution, this brief word hides an abundance of extraordinarily subtle social connotations which definitely deserve a WP article. Let us not fall into the trap of deleting worthwhile subjects that may not fit exactly into WP policy, which I am sure was not devised as a black or white yardstick (to mix my metaphors). Even if there is one aspect in the article that would not be appropriate in a dictionary entry on the word, it is worth keeping. Nick Michael (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The article contains etymological and historical information which is not suitable for the Wiktionary project. This is clearly within the scope of THIS project, and not a dicdef issue. - BalthCat (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to go beyond what a dictionary might tell you, however might I suggest a merge with woman? WackyWace ^talk 10:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seem ridiculous to delete this article. I have to completely disagree with those who think that this article is essentially a dictionary entry. The term Lady has enormous social and cultural significance that can never be captured in a dictionary entry. As already stated, all of the other honorifics and styles should also be deleted if this entry is to be deleted. --L.Smithfield (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment I actually think that WP could (or even should) have an article on upper-class women, or women who conform to social expectations of respectability. I'm not sure it should be called "Lady" however. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, but AfD is not the way to do moving and renaming. Essentially what you're saying is the article needs to be cleaned up and redefined, not deleted. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is not about ladies, but about the word "lady." That was why I nominated it for deletion, because WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary explictly says just that: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". Such articles should provide other types of information about that topic as well." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the article does not give any information about ladies. In fact a large part of it is about the word "lady" being used to refer to women who are not ladies in the traditional sense of the word. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "ladies"... it is about usage of the honorific term Lady, and naturally the article about the honorific deals with how the term Lady is used and is set apart from lessor usages. Perhaps a move to Lady (honorific) might satisfy you? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An honorific is still just a word or term.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In exanding a reader's understanding of a topic, Wikipedia includes articles on such "honorifics" as Emperor, King, Lord, President, Governor, Mayor, Majesty, Highness, as well as articles on non-honorific "words" such as rapist, pedophile, terrorist, priest, nun, etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really, seriously claiming that the articles at emperor, king, lord, president, governor etc. should simply cover them as honorific words??? Because they don't right now. If yes, are we supposed to take any of the rest of your comments seriously? If not, are we supposed to take your flippant comments seriously?- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up- there is simply too much to this to be covered by a simple dictionary entry. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiktionary is not limited by print space considerations." -WP article on Wiktionary Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Despite its not being "limited" by space considereations (just as Wikipedia is not limited by space consierations), the Wictionary page for that term handles it in the same limited fashion as do dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster. It is here at Wikipedia where readers are given much more depth and backgrond in increasing their understanding or the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason that Wiktionary can't give the same information about the word "lady"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to go and expand on the limited definition they have over there, and see how fast someone there reverts you for creating an article when all they want is a minimal "definition". It is here at Wikipedia where we strive to add to a reader's overall understanding of a topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our scope is not defined by what Wiktionary will or will not accept. Powers ^T 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't only have definitions in Wiktionary either; they include etymology and usage, and quite a few other things.- Wolfkeeper 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct us to the Lady entry in Wiktionary which "include(s) etymology and usage, and quite a few other things." Moriori (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary:lady.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent example of a meaningful construct that is apt to be linked in many, many WP articles. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Powers; an encyclopedia article should be about only one topic, and the name most commonly used for that topic should be it's title, when possible. An encyclopedia article should never be about all the meanings associated with a given word or term that happens to be the title of the article, unless it's a dab page. With that in mind, I cannot discern the topic of the article at Lady. It truly does seem to be about the word primarily, and many of the meanings ascribed to that word. However, that's an argument to fix the article, not delete it. That does not exclude the possibility that the article cannot be fixed because there is no one topic associated with Lady worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. If that's true, then it should be deleted after all. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole point of AFDs is to take stock of an article. If the article cannot be other than purely about a term, then it needs to be deleted or merged. I don't see any evidence at all that this article can be more than an extended attempt at covering the different definitions of the word 'lady'. That to me says it needs to merge with another article or several. For example merging most of it with Lord would seem to be a reasonable option, or creating a glossary of titles, and making it into a disamb page would be better than what we have.- Wolfkeeper 03:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only point of AFD is to empower an admin to use the delete function, which is tightly restricted because of its seriously destructive nature. Other discussion of the article's content and scope should take place on its talk page which is provided for this purpose. RfCs may be used as needed to form an adequate quorum. Using AFD as a general discussion forum is like using capital punishment as a form of career counselling. "So, you're not sure whether you should go into teaching or social work, eh? Well, let's see if the mob would rather hang you instead...". Colonel Warden (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Good one. However I am perfectly sincere in saying this article should be deleted. And yes this is also intended as a test case for WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I hope there is not a policy against that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AFD seems rather ridiculous to me. Just because something is in a dictionary, doesn't mean it can't be in an encyclopedia as well. The article clearly states: This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain. An Encyclopedia company that has been around since 1768, has determined it notable enough to be in their encyclopedia. Dream Focus 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then how about renaming the article to "How the word 'lady' was used in the United Kingdom in 1911 according to the Encyclopeadia Britannica", since that is the only source cited? Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep, either a pointy nomination or a failure to understand the point of an encyclopaedia. Verbal chat 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep is only used when there are no counterweighing arguments. That's actually a bad-faith call.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is 100% correct in his/her understanding of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." However, in some cases this is trumped by WP:Ignore all rules. Some words are important enough, and have an interesting enough history, to have their own WP articles -- despite "not a dictionary." This came up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonies. Certainly ladies are more important than Moonies. (I am one so it's okay for me to use that word. :-) I plan to boldly jump into the the Lady article and correct some of the misunderstandings and Britishisms. Cheers. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't "correct" Britishisms, that would be highly POV! Just make sure the scope & context of points is clearly defined, and reference whatever you add. I'll be watching. Everybody agrees the article needs improving. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the first sentence. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was partly joking there. However I do think the article needs a more world-wide view. BTW (I am in my 50s and born and raised in California) I use the word "lady" as my first choice in talking about any woman.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moonies was badly completed; the administrator failed to give a rationale. Merely having a majority of keep votes isn't sufficient, and the fact that he just gave a result indicates he just did a head count; but AFDs when done correctly are not votes. They can't be votes due to vote stuffing being too easy here.- Wolfkeeper 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to renominate it. Don't invite me though because I can not promise which way I would vote. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary and stub here with template:wi. Failing that, delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an exceptionally well written prose dictionary definition with an extended etymology and usage section. There is no encyclopedic content here, however. Given the length of time that it has been in this condition, I see little chance that encyclopedic content will be found at this title but it can always be rewritten then if something is found. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Fundamental misunderstanding of WP:DICTIONARY by nominator. That policy is to prevent articles that consist of little more than a dictionary definition, not to prevent lengthy articles about the history and cultural context of a honorific title. There are no problems with this article that can't be solved through normal editing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my understanding of WP:DICTIONARY: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." Please tell me why that is wrong. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the editor seems to be trying to make a WP:POINT. While I understand that articles on words should not normally exist, there are very obvious exceptions. Claritas § 07:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per WP:SNOW. Horribly misguided nomination. Reyk _YO! 09:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's replies to the delete !votes above. Really, when you think about it, we have dozens of articles like. Most anything that's a verb or adjective could be called a "dictionary definition" in the way that this is. —Soap— 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from a handful of swear words we don't have adjectives and verbs either. Seriously, try finding one. See WP:VERB and WP:ADJECTIVE.- Wolfkeeper 01:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taunton, Massachusetts. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taunton Fire Department[edit]

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

The article as it currently stands appears to be an attempt at creating a website instead of an article. I have tried to cleanup and source the article. I find articles that discuss the department, but most of them are about fires and other emergencies the department has responded to. There is some discussion about actions the Taunton City Council has taken or proposed about the department. The department has three firehouses that are listed as National Historic Places that have their own articles. I do not believe there is enough to say the fire department is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tomorrow someone will start an article about some town's garbage collection specialists... _noisy jinx ^huh? 12:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEBHOST if it's the fire department, and that and the concern about an unauthorized person possibly giving inaccurate information about emergency service if it's anyone else. Mention it in the article about Taunton, Massachusetts unless the fire department itself achieves notability beyond the local area. Mandsford 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (probably losing most of the trivial content...) to the municipality it serves per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fire Service#Notability of Fire Departments. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better solution than deleting the article. I wish I would have thought of it before nominating this for deletion. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge: Nothing prevents an interested party from merging the appropriate information right now ... Ravenswing 14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note You can't actually do that--if you deleted it, there'd be nothing to merge, and if you meant "merge then delete" that isn't permitted per our licensing. That's why merged things are kept with as redirects with the history intact. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to say that responses like that are exactly why I'm reluctant to use the "m-word" at all. A polite suggestion to the author for any interested party to transfer the appropriate info to an article is turned into a criticism of the person for even making it. Several of us have dropped hints to the author to take the opportunity to write about Taunton's bravest, but not in an article of its own. For my part, I don't want an article called "Taunton Fire Department" in the list of titles, I don't want to encourage the creation of other fire department articles, and I don't want to preserve the history of this newly written article or the text of the 911 protocol. Here's the blunt version to the article's author: "If I were you, I would start writing about this in the article about Taunton, New Jersey, because it ain't gonna be around much longer." Mandsford 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Franzmann[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP; prod (not mine) contested. I can find no reliable, independent sources that establish the notability of this person or support any of the biographical content of the article. Of the three publications listed, Shatterday is a self-published (Lulu) work. The external links appear to be dead. The article fails WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Personal biographies of persons without notability (the article reads like a blog in addition to lacking solid references) do not belong on Wiki. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this author in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable author. The infobox lists his occupation as "novelist," but the article makes no mention of any novels - just a couple of books about strategy for playing "Magic:The Gathering," and some short stories published in a magazine. Long way to go before he is WP:N notable by Wikipedia's standards. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anaal Nathrakh (album)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Non-notable (looked but couldn't find significant independent media coverage), and information is given for this release on Total Fucking Necro. I'd suggest it should redirect to Total Fucking Necro. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion?--Cannibaloki 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, Support delete. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS.--Cannibaloki 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Total Fucking Necro. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Malik Shabazz. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JFK Institut[edit]

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

Unsourced. Not sure how notable this school is. Needs cleanup Cssiitcic (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find much in a search, but the Institute has been running for over 30 years according to their website. I also can't find an article on this subject on the Spanish language Wikipedia - which doesn't really surprise me as often things appear here but not in the native language of the subject area. Not mentioned in the article (so far as I can see) is the country in which this institute is based - actually the Dominican Republic. This could partly explain the lack of ghits for a reasonably long-running educational establishment. At least I'm not finding any 'beware of this degree mill' warnings, so it appears to be legitimate. However, the article as it stands is merely an account of a graduation ceremony and as such distinctly non-encyclopaedic. A total rewrite would be necessary, not just a clean-up. Peridon (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? (By the way, I'm neutral here, but are you sure the last word in the title isn't supposed to be "institute"?) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyright violation of this article, of which this appears to be an automated translation from Spanish to English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Singh[edit]

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

Cruz-iglesia (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. We don't need an article for every DJ and and co-host on some program. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing whatsoever of note. Nearly non existent references. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bring the Ruckus[edit]

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

nn organization . I cannot find significant non trivial coverage in Reliable sources Oo7565 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. No real assertion of notability.-Reconsider ! 11:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real citations apart from their website, which appears to be more of a blog, and words like 'revolutionary' are more than slightly questionable in an encyclopedia. WackyWace ^talk 10:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Fernández-Peña[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Subject is potentially notable as a voice in the Spanish dub of the upcoming Toy Story 3. No reliable sources provided, unable to find any. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Dubbing work generally doesn't help notability. Hairhorn (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fernández-Peña is the voice of Spanish Buzz in the international version of Toy Story 3, not the Spanish dub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenp70 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to imdb at least, he does voice work in the original English version of Toy Story 3, not dubbing work. But this entry still requires third party sources to establish notability. He has no other film credits. Hairhorn (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stabilo_(band)#Discography. Redirecting on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchen Sessions[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Stabilo (band) Truthsort (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without Persons remix CD[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Novin[edit]

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

Although it's not clear-cut, I don't think this individual meets notability criteria. He was awarded by the Nashville Technology Council - but that award doesn't appear to be notable, and the only coverage it resulted in appears to be local in scope and specialist in nature (business press). I42 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Health Masson is an important innovation wrt Health Costs

There have been a large number of articles about Health Mason in recent times, including the very important Medical News: ^[1] and ^[2] , and ^[3] and ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] and ^[7] and many others including the ones referenced in the article. The fact the Nashville Technological Council has recognized Sal Novin, as the 2009 Innovator of the Year, and the buzz that this innovation has created around the world makes me absolutely convinced the person noteworthy. I also found a reference to Health Masson and Sal Novin in the Reference dictionary.

^ Health Mason software to streamline health care claim payment process, The Medical News17, November 2009
^ Lawley, Erin. Linnaeus exec starts new health IT biz;Company focused on automation tools, Nashville Post, March 11, 2010
^ Health Care Robots: Next Generation Decision-Making Software, Eliminates Manual Systems Labor Tennessee Report, November 16, 2009
^ http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/16112009/31/link-f-prnewswire-health-care-robots-next-generation-decision-making-software.html Yahoo Finance
^ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-215582291.html
^ Bio Medicine
^ Health Care Robots: Next Generation Decision-Making Software, Eliminates Manual Systems Labor Earth times

Artaxerex (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is not clear. Is Health Mason also being suggested for deletion? It appears that the software may be notable, in which case the article on the person should be merged there. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on Health Mason did not exist when I raised this AfD. Despite the article creator's comments above about that product being notable, this AfD is about the article on Sal Novin. I42 (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully submit that, if Health Mason is a noteworthy AI, and if the Nashville Technology Council's award for Innovator of the Year is of any note, then perhaps the person who created the AI, and won the award for it would be of note. Artaxerex (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not follow at all. Coverage / awards for the product which mention the creator only in passing most likely do not affirm notability to him. Even if there is significant coverage of the creator, this has to be considered with WP:BIO1E in mind. So far I see no indication either is notable. I42 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Here we go again! This happened many times before and I don't have time for it. Like the one before, I am not going to fight this one either. Go ahead and delete it. Artaxerex (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete. Author requests deletion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm not going to enterpret something the creator most likely said out of frustration as a CSD G7 request. More discussion is required before this article is deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding much coverage specifically about Sal Novin. This article is th eonly indpendent coverage. A local technology award isn't that notable. At coverage is insufficient for ntoability. As for the Helath Mason coverage and being notable as its creator, I'm not convinved that Helath Mason is even notable. The links shown above are all press releases, and in fact are the same press release. Compare Medical News (sourced to Linnaeus Inc.) with Earth Times (explicitly noted as a press release) and the Highbeam summary. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don;t think either the product or the person is notable yet., and I do not consider a local award of that sort significant. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Yahoo! Reinvention and the Road Ahead[edit]

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

No evidence that this book is notable; and very little of any encyclopaedic value in the article. This search for reviews shows 32 hits almost none of which have any relevance - reader reviews, passing mentions etc. I can't find a single review that meets WP criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. andy (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [63], [64], [65], and [66]. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs #2 and #4 are identical (same url)and come from a subscription-only presswire service - fails WP:RS. #1 and #3 are inaccessible without a subscription. andy (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is available from a subscription service and not freely available online doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source. Two of the original articles were in the Database and Network Journal, InTheBlack magazine. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless that's still only two references rather than the four that were proposed. andy (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the page to meet standards. Please look at it. Also, you must have messed up the search because I found many references and reviews for it.

Willy625 (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's see these reviews then, please. The search I gave in my nomination looks for the book title and the word "review", while excluding trivial sources such as blogs - in what way is that messed up? I can't find anything that meets the notability criteria of "multiple, non-trivial" works. ~~Narthring~~ Joe Chill has proposed four reviews, but two of them are identical and trivial and I can't access the other two. So at best there are two decent reviews - hardly notability. I notice that the publisher itself only quotes from two reviews - one of which is from the Freepint newsletter and the other is one of the ones already mentioned by ~~Narthring~~ Joe Chill. andy (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the article as it now stands is pretty much identical with the publisher's blurb. If it survives this AfD it will need rewriting. andy (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never proposed any reviews, Joe Chill did. I said that because something is available on a subscription service online and not freely accessible doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source. I think this is especially true when the source is also available in printed form, as two of the sources are. I have no idea if the two sources are or are not reliable and nontrivial - just that they are not automatically nonreliable. If they are reliable and nontrivial then I believe the two articles could demonstrate notability. That doesn't mean this Wikipedia article should be kept just because there may be two articles out there that demonstrate notability. The burden of proof still lies with whoever wants to keep the article. Narthring (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad - I copied and pasted the wrong username when editing. andy (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NB and WP:GNG. Claritas § 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. Me-123567-Me (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still haven't seen anything that establishes notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelische Theologische Academie (ETA)[edit]

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

While schools are generally notable and articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia, this is about an unofficial school which the article states is not recognised by the Dutch government. Biker Biker (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete The lack of articles in English shows that there is little interest about the school outside the Dutch speaking world. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion of address and phone number always makes me think 'spam', although the rest of the article is fairly neutral. There's not much claim of notability in the article, and I cannot find an article on the subject on the Dutch language Wikipedia. (Now there's a surprise...) Also, references don't appear to be particularly independent of the subject. I can't work out who the christelijknieuws people are from their site, other than that they are Christians, but uitdagingonline seems to be evangelical like the subject. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
very weak Keep seems to be a college of higher education, but does not grant degrees itself, so the status is a little ambiguous. We've never gone by "recognized" or "accredited" as an necessary criterion. I've removed addresses and phone numbers from hundreds if not thousands of undoubtedly notable articles--spam gets removed, but does not necessarily lead to the deletion of the entire article. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ETA is a notable Dutch college for evangelical theology. Dewritech (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have any evidence for this claimed notability? The Dutch Wikipedia has no article about this non-degree awarding school (two versions of nl:Evangelische theologische academie were deleted), and the cited sources are either web pages of ETA itself, or press releases from ETA. --Lambiam 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is coverage in Gnews. Dewritech (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Peridon (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here [67]. Dewritech (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get any info out of the Reformatorisch Dagblad hits (the framing comes up, but no articles), but some of the others are about ETS not ETA (which only gets a quick passing mention), and all of the 17 appear to be Christian news papers of (for me) uncertain status. Perhaps someone can enlighten us on the standing of these papers with regard to the noteworthiness of their contents, and their circulation. Peridon (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here the corresponding articles of Dutch-Wiki: Reformatorisch Dagblad, Nederlands Dagblad, and Uitdaging. Dewritech (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From that, Uitdaging has a circulation of 6,500, a bit small; Nederlands Dagblad has about 30,000; and Reformatorisch Dagblad about 56,000. Peridon (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Institutions offering degree level courses sounds notable to me, even if its degrees are not "recognised" by the state - it does not look like a degreee mill to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Fraser (businessman)[edit]

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

Unremarkable person - VP of a regional branch of a large company but not notable for any other reason. Similar reasons resulted in deletion of Michael Duck (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Duck) who from memory worked for the same company. Biker Biker (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not at the level of person who should have their own Wiki WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.217.243 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication subject meets WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Featured in national newspaper articles, eg [68]. Obviously a very senior business leader and former public servant. Described as "The man who by most reasonable definitions is the most influential Australian executive in international finance". Sounds notable to me. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Wall Street Journal article establishes notability, as far as I'm concerned. Buddy431 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable careeron the basis of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see how he meets WP:ANYBIO. [69]. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that search is affected by the un-Australian inclusion of his middle initial. See for example the piece in The Australian linked in my !vote above.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here's a revised search [70]. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which again misses the feature in The Australian. For what it's worth he has an entry in Who's Who (offline) although there's nothing there of substance that isn't already in the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ample coverage can be found with a Google search (eg. [71] [72] [73]), and while many of these are corporate biographies, in this article he is named as a possible future reserve bank governor, and in this article (the same one Mkativerata mentioned above), he is described as "The man who by most reasonable definitions is the most influential Australian executive in international finance". -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically this si even, however, the keep votes are particularly weak. The IP claims all local news anchors are notable- not the case, and AlandOrland's vote is, just that, just a vote. MelanieN's is the only keep argument that is grounded in policy. (To be fair, Bearian's !vote to delete based on past outcomes isn't a good argument, either) but the consensus is still that this is not enough sourcing or notability to justify a BLP, hence, I'm closing this as a delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Philpott[edit]

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

Local news reporter lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Has won one local award for best anchor; however, it does not appear this is enough to provide Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per past outcomes. She is a "nightside reporter", not an anchor. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a local news anchor, and local news anchors are notable. Just because one person on Wikipedia hasn't heard of her is no reason to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.57.146 (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please show us where in WP:BIO it states "local news anchors are notable." ttonyb (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She did win a statewide award as cited in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks the type of coverage for notability. There is weak coverage even at the local level. Stormbay (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable local news reporter. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The single state award does not make her notable, and without actual significant coverage, cannot meet WP:BLP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an obvious keeper, has reached level of notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please demonstrate how this person has reached notability using the Wikipedia definition of notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Mujahadin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG IQinn (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- As adding more references proved trivial. Geo Swan (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per GeoSwan Buckshot06 (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very adequately sourced. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work on sourcing, Geo Swan. Dana boomer (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 03:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goal setting[edit]

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

Vague subject with minimal (if any) reliable sourcing. Largely original research and not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Goal) essay/OR. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Merge (see below). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR, as per above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Mainly original research; the topic itself, however, could merit an article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic deserves an article but the present content is somehow unsuitable, then the solution would normally be to rewrite it rather than delete it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why not just move the original research to the talk page and replace it with this stub? Goal setting is an organizational behavior topic that goes back to Taylor and it certainly merits an article. -- Pnm (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great notability as there are hundreds of books devoted to this topic. The rest is a matter of article improvement in accordance with our editing policy. The current draft actually provides inline citations and its critics don't seem to have read closely enough to observe this or follow them up. Their opinion is therefore worthless. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's entirely unnecessary and bordering on WP:NPA to characterize others' opinions as "worthless," and does nothing to bolster your argument. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is a claim that this substantial article is worthless to us and so should be deleted. Per WP:SAUCE, it is therefore in order to assess the value of the nomination and doing so is necessarily our purpose here. This nomination declares this to be a vague topic with minimal sourcing. But where is the evidence? When we inspect the article, we find that its topic is a clear and substantial one and that it cites respectable sources such as Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation — a good survey of the field which was published in the respectable journal American Psychologist. The nomination therefore appears to be counter-factual and so seems of no value. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At its current state, there is little to be pared down to, and that is probably adequately covered at Goal. If more, sourced information comes along, then the article can be recreated. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Goal#Goal management in organizations. That is basically what this article is about, goals and their connotations to businesses. I do not yet see a reason why this should be a separate article, and it is an essay that proves a thesis. The rest of this article is a mainly unencyclopedic fluff, and that portion contains no citations whatsoever. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article before us has no special focus upon business and it would not be sensible to narrow the focus in this way as goal setting is a feature of most activities. The suggested article section is inferior to the current article as it only contains one allusion to a source and has little else to recommend it. Better to stick with what we have and improve it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the fourth paragraph on, this is all about goals in a company setting. Agree that sourcing issues remain, but all of the provided sources support the particular sections on goals in companies. I see no reason why we would not be better off salvaging any content to the main article. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that any salvageable material here should be merged to Goal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, to indicate the various overlapping meaning is management, psychology, etc. Merging to Goal is much too broad and will be even more confusing than the represent article. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I began adding citations to goal-setting theory which is a candidate to replace the uncited content in goal setting. I'd support a merge. After trying to cite goal setting my conclusion is that much of it is too vague to be verifiable. --Pnm (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is also a good candidate to have this content merged into, even better than my prior suggestion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the massive coverage "goal setting" gets deals with that theory. In fact, only a small fraction mention it as a theory. [74]. I'm against any merge over there. Dream Focus 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True: goal setting has been popularized. This merge is more appropriate: goal-setting theory into goal setting. --Pnm (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you spend just a few brief moments clicking the Google search links at the top of the AFD, you will see that Google news has 32,600 results, Google books has 6,750 results, and Google scholar shows 147,000 results. This is a commonly used term, and I don't see it used for anything other than the concept mentioned in the article. Dream Focus 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically, this is an obvious "no consensus" given that almost nobody bothered to comment, but given that this an porrly source biography of a living person, nobody has objected to its deletion and it has been deleted , I'm going to go with a delete, invoking WP:IAR if I must. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Alavi fard[edit]

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

I question the notability of this person. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion definitely needs an attention of people fluent in Arabic and Persian language. Google search for his name in the mentioned languages gives a lot of hits, unfortunately I can't read the beautiful scripts and G-translator is too weak to recognize useful content. See also the Arabic and Persian Wiki articles (the Persian article seems to question his notability). This article could be useful for our consideration (?) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to User:Mardetanha regarding this article on the Simple English Wikipedia. He suggested a deleted. However, more opinions would of course be welcomed.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the simple:wiki AfD here: simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/Yahya Alavi fard.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments please?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link (album) was deleted as consequent of this AFD per A9 JForget 01:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathuresh[edit]

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

Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also unable to find significant coverage of him. Jujutacular ^T · C 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:MUSICBIO; I cannot find any reliable sources to show significant coverage of him. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per J04n --Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malem Jan Sobari[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG IQinn (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N in my opinion as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no sources available to establish notability. One mention in the "Guantanamo Docket" on the New York Times just doesn't amount to "significant coverage". --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. Also, this is a BLP problem, since we are "alleging" a lot of fairly negative stuff about this guy. Dana boomer (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If anyone finds any sources in the future, just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Sanif terrorist camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG IQinn (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Aqua military training camp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG IQinn (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Muhammad Surur Dakhilallah Al Utaybi] is notable. This camp is only notable in that it hosted him; this information is already present on Al Utaybi's page. Jaqphule (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tank Nafaz Shariati Muhammed Molakand Organization[edit]

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

Fails WP:N IQinn (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One mention in a court transcript does not create notability. Google/GBooks/GNews has no significant mentions of the organization, other than on Wiki-mirror sites. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source provided suggests existence but gets nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanka Dineth[edit]

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

DeleteI can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. There is no any importance to create an article about this person. Most of information in the article is essentially unverifiable. --Wipeouting (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Wipeouting (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fear he fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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