< 13 November	15 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aztnara[edit]

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

This animal seems to be non-existent. I've looked for sources, and I haven't found any. I looked for some images, but still none at all. So this seems to be a hoax, but I'm not quite sure. Endofskull (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most charitable explanation is that this is a word for a bird species in another language. Like the nominator, I can't find ANY sources, reliable or unreliable. Article created by a newly registered user, and it's that person's only contribution. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cutting Edge News[edit]

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

Two sources of notability are claimed: $BIGNUMBER of subscribers (source: the website itself, #fail) and $NOTABLEGUY publishing it (notability is not inherited #fail). Indepdendent source count: zero. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete. The mention of an opinion piece on Wikipedia as a most notable article is a red flag for notability. I'm willing to reconsider if someone rewrites this to show actual notability. Their current front page article has text like: "Islam had been at war with the Jewish people since its defining inception in 627 when Mohammad exterminated the Jews of Mecca and launched the Islamic Conquest that swept north and subsumed Syria-Palestina..." I'd be very curious to see what other news organizations (besides The Wikipedia Signpost) consider this site a real source of news. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I disagree that the opinion piece on the unreliability of Wikipedia is a red flag for anything other than lack of reliability of Wikipedia. Notable authors have contributed to this blog, but there still do not appear to be other indicators of notability. --KeptSouth (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wampum (Card Game)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Game made up in a college in the United States, with absolutely no notability whatsoever. role^player 22:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Endofskull (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bus Service in Batu Pahat[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTDIRECTORY. wacky wace 21:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC) public|Jclemens-public]] (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the article title is poor grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark B. Newbauer[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP; notability jsfouche ☽☾ talk 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any independent reliable sources, just promotional material connected to the subject. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find a bunch of press releases related to his company -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Warnken[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any of the nine criteria for an academic to be notable. References are weak, and I'm unable to find anything else that would prove notability. A conflict of interest regarding the original author is suspected. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 6 cites on GS. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO both. Could've been speedied at A7, but I gather that the speedy was contested. Ray^Talk 08:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. A teacher with a PhD, and that seems to be it. Should have been speedy-deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged CSD, but erring on the side of caution I contested it! --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and previous rationales.--Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, or any other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Ali Khan[edit]

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

No reliable third-party references. Also fails WP:ATHLETE. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 20:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be speedied really. No notability whatsoever. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Goosebumps books. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tales to Give You Goosebumps[edit]

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

This article should be deleted in accordance to WP:N (was tagged for not citing any sources since August 2010). There is no significant coverage of this topic, and only trivial mentions. Also, all the necessary info on this topic is listed on List of Goosebumps books anyways. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I agree the whole series and subsequent other series are pretty non-notable unless specifically examined by reviewers (which in fact is very few). Fearstreetsaga, are you looking at the other R.L. Stine books for ones that are in a similar state? As I am going through and tagging novels I am finding a lot of them in the same non-notable, minor plot summary state. Sadads (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree with the above, but the article should be merged with List of Goosebumps books. -- d'oh! _[talk] 01:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Goosebumps books because the content is already covered in its entirety there. Reyk _YO! 00:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Boks[edit]

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

Article does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football (the player has not yet participated in any competitions). For this reason deleted on the Dutch Wikipedia (nl:Tom Boks). ErikvanB (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He fails all relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big White Tiger LLC[edit]

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

This article looks like an attempt at public relations because it was created by a single purpose account, and remains very thinly sourced. Checking the sources that are online, I do not see coverage by multiple independent sources as required by our corporation/organization notability guideline. Passing mentions and minor blubs are not sufficient to write more than a very short stub. Wikipedia is not a collection of indescriminate information. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The standard WP:CORP requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The cited on-line ref Small Scale, Big Impact on Biodiesel magazine alone seems to provide this as it is a detailed profile on this company and not just "Trivial or incidental coverage". - Ahunt (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the plural--which we often take to mean "more than two." I agree that that coverage is not trivial, but that magazine is not exactly the New York Times. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One magazine article does not sufficiently establish notability, and I could find nothing else. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came here after seeing the ANI discussion at WP:ANI#Big White Tiger LLC Legal Settlement. Though we would hesitate to delete an article merely because of an off-wiki legal dispute, the fact that the company seems not to be continuing in business removes most of the reason for having an article on them. They did not (so far as I can tell) make such a large impact that it's worth keeping an article on them as a former company. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does seem to be slightly advertising, but I believe that could easily be fixed ("They also provide a wide range of fuel additive products that increase gas mileage, help keep engines clean, and/or improve diesel engine efficiency. Additionally, Big White Tiger sells biodiesel supplies and small-scale production equipment"). And it also has reliable secondary sources. Endofskull (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That remains to be seen. There is one article (really, a few paragraphs in an article with a lot of tidbits) from a reliable source, and then the article from Biodiesel Magazine, the status of which is unclear. I'm saddened that I, as a "delete" voter, have done more work on cleaning up the article and providing sources than the "keep"ers. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The company seems notable enough. Could be expanded and more sources added, but overall it should be kept.--NavyBlue84 17:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add those sources--reliable ones, please. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find multiple RS providing Significant coverage. Thus Failing WP:CORP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RA. Fails WP:CORP. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage are generally expected so to meet WP:GNG and I don't see these. WP:CORP says that we should also consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education; I cannot see that this company has had any such significant or demonstrable impact. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, questionable notability and too much time would need to be invested in unpicking the legal issues if kept. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not yet adequately established. Yworo (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing special or notable about them, just another small company. Even the Biodiesel Magazine quote in the article itself says that White Tiger is "a niche player in the biodiesel industry". The silent gnome (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hey look. No coverage found in reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was suspicious because they wanted to be deleted, but looking around, they're way under the WP:CORP notability threshold. Hoovers says they had revenue of $0.1 milllion. Virginia's State Corporation Commission shows them as established in 2006 and cancelled in 2010. Google News archives have nothing. The address the State Corporation Commission has comes up in Google Maps as a house in a subdivision. Big White Tiger's one moment of fame was when they installed (not developed, just bought and installed) a commercial $4000 unit capable of processing 40 gallons of kitchen grease into fuel. --John Nagle (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, references do not amount to the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Actually it does not fail WP:CORP, notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands bus route 45 & 47[edit]

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

Contested Prod, non notable bus routes that lack the coverage required by WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Endofskull (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:N Admrboltz (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy and Claire Weiss[edit]

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

Jeremy and Claire Weiss are an American photography team noted for their portraiture and documentary work of musicians, celebrities, and friends. Except that they don't seem to be noted for it, or anyway the noting hasn't been at all conspicuous. Oh, there's the expected roster of slebs (sourced to their own website) and clients (not sourced at all), and they once won an award. And yes, Jeremy hosts a weekly radio program called GTFU with Aaron Farley and Annie Hardy. All this information thoughtfully provided by SPA "GTFU" (contributions). NN. -- Hoary (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. The only assertion of relevance (won an annual award) is not sourced, and looks minor, and certainly fails ARTIST. Notability is not inherited and having celebrity clients or appearing on a radio show with an article does not mean the subject satisfies WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant assertion of importance, and insufficient evidence of notability.--Korruski^Talk 11:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Gund[edit]

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

Delete. Ordinary architect. Attributions are for non-notable buildings for notable organizations. In other words, ordinary buildings designed by an ordinary architect. Apparently the Kenyon building is a single exception, but people can't be notable for just one thing. Else, all architects would be "notable" automatically as the result of their job description. Student7 (talk) 13:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prominent Boston architect with a national practice whose firm has won numerous awards - very far from "ordinary." The article does a poor job of describing Gund's work, which I'll see if I can rectify. There are at least two monographs on Gund/Gund Architects, one with a lengthy introduction by Paul Goldberger, the New York Times architecture critic. According to Gund's website there are five mentions in publications like the LA Times, Boston Globe and Architect magazine in 2010 alone, and half-a-dozen major awards, again just in 2010 so far. Architect places Gund in the top 35 architects in the U.S. this year, and the firm goes back to 1971. Described as "nationally renowned" in the Chicago Tribune in 1996. From the article history the issues seem to be more with content rather than notability. Acroterion _(talk) 16:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An aside: while recognizing that notability is not inherited from rich parents and siblings, the Gund family as a whole is distinctly notable: brothers Gordon Gund and George Gund own the Cleveland Cavaliers and owned the Minnesota North Stars. It's clear where Graham got the money for his art collection and endowments to the MFA. Their father George Gund II should have an article as a major philanthropist and businessman. As for Graham, the article as it stands makes a clear case for general notability, although I'm a little hampered in expanding it by paywalls and don't have much on Gund in my personal library. The monograph's bibliography (look in Google Books) mentions nearly all of the buildings claimed by the nom as "non-notable" on the talkpage, and references coverage in Progressive Architecture, US News, Architectural Record, the New York Times, the Washington Post and others. I am concerned at the circular logic evidenced on the article talkpage that essentially states that "if the buildings (themselves, as opposed to the institution) aren't covered in Wikipedia, they're not notable." Architectural coverage on Wikipedia is poor to begin with, this kind of argument doesn't help.Acroterion _(talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment'. There are hundreds of thousands of large building in the US (and world). I am concerned that "Big Building X" on Campus Y is "automatically" considered "notable." I would wonder why. It's just another big building constructed so it won't fall down (the West learned architecture the hard way in the Middle Ages, when indeed large Cathedrals fell down). So that is their major contribution. But that doesn't mean that it is notable and that all articles about any architect should be automatically considered notable. There is nothing in the article except braggadocio at the moment. And one notable building. If we evaluated all bios as generously as we do this architect I guess everyone would get a pass, your local gym instructor, convenience store operator. "Gee, we haven't got around to chronicling their real contributions. Just give them a pass, you troglodyte!"
  - Please dial it back a little. I very much doubt that your local convenience store operator has had a monograph published about him, nor has received coverage in major newspapers as documented in the article, nor been written about by the pre-eminent architectural critic in the United States. All this is referenced in the article, and fulfills the general notability guideline. I'm not sure why you're stuck on "one notable building", which is clearly not the case; notability, with rare exceptions, is based on a body of work that's been noted and documented in the press. The article could use improvement, better referencing and expansion, but that is not what AfD is about. I do in fact agree that a given building on a given campus is not automatically notable, but we are not debating buildings. Acroterion _(talk) 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with above statements from Acroterion. Not enough research in the resources that an architect would typically search within has been performed. In the short amount of time that I looked down through Yahoo hits, I also found Boston Globe and Washington Post articles about Gund's s work. I just have not had the personal time to go back through years of Architectural Record which has articles on the firm's work. Concerning awards, go to the Gund Partnership's web page at http://www.gundpartnership.com/ and you will find that the firm has an award porfolio of more than 100 regional and national awards for design excellence since 1971. I know that a good Wikipedia editor would want to verify that information, but fine architectural practices do not lie when making statements like that. These awards may be vetted through third party sources such as the American Institute of Architects, the Boston Society of Architects, the Society for College and University Planning, the Connecticut Green Building Council, and others. Please understand that Wikipedia is hardly a complete compendium of information and that looking only within Wikipedia to determine notability is not prudent practice. Acroterion, if you want me to take on some of the tasking to help build this article, possibly we can apportion the tasks. One more point - remarks on the talk page of the subject article such as, "He couldn't have gone to school in a hall named for himself. (Harvard). This is just plain silly." display a gross lack of sensitivity and a real lack of knowledge of the subject matter. If Graham Gund himself were to read that (and he could), I can just imagine how he would feel about Wikipedia. Please keep the page, and also please consider deleting the talk page discussion that includes the above quote (for Wikipedia's own good reputation). Doc2234 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hurting his feelings! What? Right now there is no reason he should have any space in an encyclopedia. Anyway, somebody who is really notable won't get his little feelings hurt by any remark, even one that is so obviously true. If his feelings are hurt by such remarks, I doubt that he belongs here. Just one more reason. Student7 (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Graham Gund, FAIA is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects^[1]

2010 Housing Award, Multifamily Living ^[2]

Society for College and University Planning, SCUP/AIA-CAE Excellence in Architecture Addition ^[3]

Boston Society of Architects, HIGHER-EDUCATION FACILITIES DESIGN AWARDS PROGRAM/2009, CITATIONS FOR DESIGN ^[4]

AIA Columbus, Ohio Chapter, 2009 Design Awards ^[5]

BSA , 2000:The Year in Review ^[6]

^ "Chair of the Advisory Council of the Boston Foundation for Architecture" top of page
^ Aleksandr Bierig “AIA Announces 18 Winners of 2010 Housing Awards” Architectural Record, May 13, 2010 5th entry for that specific housing category
^ Merit Award, Kenyon College for Pierce Hall 3rd entry for the Excellence in Architecture Addition category
^ Kenyon College Athletic Center page 5 3rd entry for the Citations for Design category
^ Merit Award, the Thompson Library at the Ohio State University – Design Architect 3rd entry from top of page
^ BSA/AlA New YorkHousing DesignAwards 5th entry for that specific category

I could continue with research. The above should prove notability. This is only a glimpse of the awards. Graham Gund has FAIA stature. A small percentage of AIA members have that stature. Please keep the page. Doc2234 (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Sources indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a lot of coverage in reliable secondary sources, including 165 Google News hits and over 4,000 Google Books hits. The article already utilizes many of these good sources. Thus, it passes the GNG and should not be deleted. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references added since the AfD nomination show clear notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kutlu[edit]

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

An article on somebody who, his agent claims, has taken photos for a handful of companies that (via advertising agencies) employ a lot of people to take photos, and of a number of celebs whose photos pop up all over the place. If this stuff is believable, then his main thing would appear to be shampoo and the like; and "He is most known for his complicated lighting setups, and beauty images characterized by 'flawless, satiny skin' " -- which I suppose would make him pretty typical of a commercial photographer for bottled liquids for the body. His own website doesn't draw my attention to any exhibition, book, or critical commentary (or even uncritical gush). The article is one of a pile spammed by a stock photo agency (now blocked): see the article's talk page and the links from it. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. There are thousands of photographers like this. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person looks to be a very successful commercial photographer. However, there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish him as a notable commercial photographer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""delete"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristianq (talk • contribs) 22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belen Echandia[edit]

AfD discussions for this article:

I believe that this page is commercial in nature and should be deleted unless modified and displays alternate opinions. Belen Echandia does not uniquely offer a bespoke service, many handbag designers offer this same service. In addition, I found many exargerations in the page including the notion that Vogue's servers were down because Belen Echandia. In addition, based on the feedback read in the previous note, the writer has an obvious connection to the owner. I am a member of the Purse Forum and Belen Echandia is notorious in their attempts to control content about their product. There were many instances where the owners of the Purse Forum were considering closing the thread dedicated to the product because of the written harrassment from devotes. A quick search will not only display problems with quality and customer service but some members have even stated that if they didn't write postive reviews about the company, they would be prohibited from purchasing. ChecktheRhyme 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) ( Signature added by Unixtastic as the signbot seems to be asleep. )[reply]

Comment I agree that this article is advertising not encyclopedic information. The original poster Parafianowicz of this article was linked to the article subject as proved most compellingly by his/her own statement on the picture submission page at File:Belen Echandia Logo.jpg . The text is very highly biased and possibly can't be correct in any case as quoting the real (ex-)customers of this company counts as original research. Most citations are references to interviews given by the company owner in possible violation of WP:SELFPUB. All discussions on this article are dogged by Findingtruths who claims to be the owner of this company. He/She has resorted to aggressive comments, sucking up to administrators, and legal threats to suppress any discussion or improvement of this article. This company is known by ex-customers as using high pressure sales and promising discounts in return for favors. I believe this company is getting customers to update this article with the information it wishes to see here in order to use Wikipedia as free advertising. Unixtastic (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As evidence of the disconnect between the marketing image presented on this page and reality I suggest searching google for 'Belen Echandia quality'. The top link is www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/belen-echandia-c390678.html . I don't think this counts as a notable source but small companies just don't get customer comments published by notable sources. Unixtastic (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe the problem, predominantly, is the notability of the company - not that it provides a good service or not. A google search of "Belen Echandia" returns nothing but self-published sources and forum discussions - the latter being completely unreliable in most instances. I feel, reading the article and related files, that company maybe trying to use Wikipedia as a advertisment. Overall the article seems to violate WP:PROMOTION. --George2001 ^hi 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Keep Sources have established notability. --George2001 ^hi 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How did you miss the 10 online articles that show up in Google and are already used in the article? Are we using the same Internets or does your Internet tube have a hair ball in it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sources were not in the article at that time? In any case, we should strive to maintain low tones. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, that is irrelevant, they existed on the Internet, which the editor is claiming they could not find, they wrote that: "A google search ... returns nothing but self-published sources and forum discussions", which is incorrect and possibly deliberately deceptive to sway other voters. If I do the same search and find multiple references, I am left wondering why someone would make such a broad incorrect and deceptive statement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, as people search differently. I generally initially search only google news and scholar, sometimes book. I generally don't search web in general since wading through the cruft is painful. But in any case, we clearly have good sources to work with now, and we're supposed to focus on content, not the contributor, and assume good faith. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't stating that as propaganda, please asumme good faith and some etiquette doesn't go a miss. I assume you believe I'm from the FBI, or MI5 to bring down this handbag company's article. But believe me I'm not. --George2001 ^hi 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Disclosure: I have edited this page, and made a large number of changes to the original article.
Most of the content created by the original poster has been removed or rewritten by others users. The service allowing users to design their own handbag is mentioned as a product offering. It is not called bespoke, nor does it use the name the company created, Belen Echandia Couture. The entry no longer claims that this is a unique service. The entry does not mention the quality of the product, though it may have in a past. I have thus far, been unable to find sources about quality that would meet Wikipedia's standards, positive or negative. An encyclopedia often contains things one doesn't like. Just because one doesn't like something, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist with the encyclopedia. I believe this page should be given more time to be modified to meet the Wikipedia standards, rather than deleted. AuroraHcky (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page was nominated for deletion on 02 November 2010 and the result of that was a keep Previous Deletion Page. The page has been edited since to address content issues. Perhaps more time can be allowed to address content issues rather than deleting the page. AuroraHcky (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Before that last keep this page was deleted 3 times as either blatant advertising or not notable. It hasn't changed in content nearly enough to be considered as anything but promotional material. Unixtastic (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the AFD closers comment section of the Talk page, Davewild states that previous versions of the article meet the criteria for promotional, but the article was different. The article has been further changed since, working to meet the Neutral Point of View standards. AuroraHcky (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I am the original author of this article. I am also relatively new to Wikipedia. One of the fundamental reasons for this article being (re)published and (re)deleted 3 times is that my available time to volunteer toward Wikipedia is limited to an hour or two per week. Therefore, I missed the window of opportunity to identify a Speedy Delete tag and place a Hold On tag in return. I was able to catch the current publication of the article and add a Hold On tag in time. The Hold On tag created more visibility for the page and prompted the collaborative approach from the general Wikipedia community that those watching this page have witnessed of late. I am confident that the same collaborative effort would have been received had I caught a previous publications of this article and placed a Hold On tag in time. I will also note that in each case I contact the administrator who deleted the page to seek their guidance and recommendations on how to improve the page for the next publication. Parafianowicz (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For the simple fact that the article is now factual. It provides information about the company and its background and this is verifiable as far as I can tell. Side note: Interesting to note the fervor of the party promoting 'deletion'. Amzg
- Comment There are 3 parties advocating deleting this at this time - ChecktheRhyme, Unixtastic, and George2001hi. Two of the parties advocating keeping this have 10 or less total edits with PeachAzalea having only a single edit, the keep vote on this page. Unixtastic (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator of this deletion, ChecktheRhyme, also has less than 10 edits. AuroraHcky (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page was voted a keep just a few days ago. There are many pages with similar content, and other wikipedians have voted that the new content on this page is notable and can be improved with edits, rather than deleted. This brand appears to have many verifiable references. Its website is full of reviews with pictures of customers, suggesting that it has a global reach. PeachAzalea (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have sufficient coverage in notable fashion magazines. Current state of article is neutral enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding some of the other arguments here; the perceived quality of a company or product has no bearing on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's WP:Notability standards. I know nothing about this brand, but it doesn't matter if the quality is high or low; the question is whether or not the brand has non-trivial coverage in multiple WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most citations on this page came from this company itself in the form of magazine interview pieces which can't be taken as evidence of facts. Disregarding web forums and interview pieces there isn't substantial information in existence on this company. Unixtastic (talk) 02:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The interviews aren't being used to support statements like "this is the best brand in the world." They simply establish that it has been covered in a non-trivial fashion in mainstream, notable sources. There's nothing in the WP:Notability policy that negates interviews used for that purpose. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm pretty strict about companies needing reliable sourcing, and still this seems like an obvious keep to me. The above comment clearly misunderstands our notability standards. The magazine pieces are, in fact, exactly what Wikipedia demands in the form of evidence to establish notability. Vogue is clearly a high profile fashion magazine, as is Harper's Bazaar. The articles appear to be standard articles for these magazines, and so there is no reason to discount them as being press releases. As such, that alone establishes notability per WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Furthermore, the article itself is not overly promotional (any more so than any other company article). Sure, some of it could be cleaned up (I don't think the Media section is really necessary or appropriate), but the article sure seems like a keeper to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You seem to be contradicting the discussion here. Interview pieces can only be used as evidence that something was said, not that what was said is a fact. Taking that into account everything in this article except about one line is 'X says ...'. The reason I support ChecktheRhyme's request to delete this whole article, which includes plenty of my own work, is that there are none to few neutral, non interview, sources of information that wikipedia would consider notable. Therefore I can't how to write this in any neutral way. Unixtastic (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're saying. None of the Vogue articles are interviews. I don't know if the Harper's Bazaar is or not. The Local is not, although it does include quotes. The fact that your claims are very obviously false is troublesome. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pardon? As formatted on my web browser http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-04/070426-some-echandia-evening.aspx contains 27 lines of text, of these 16 contain just quotes, 2 contain a mix of quotes and non-quotes, 11 contain no quotes. Of the 11 lines that contain no quotes around 5 are lead in or lead out text plus the non-quote text at the top is spread over more lines due to an image indenting that part of the text. I was told after asking that quotes can't be used as proof of facts, only as proof of claims and that those claims should be written as "Smith claims that...", or "Smith says that...". Apart from that why do you say 'I don't think the Media section is really necessary or appropriate'? Even though I do support deleting this article I did spend quite some time updating it and thought that section was useful. Unixtastic (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been requested by an admin that I post the following links here for consideration. Again I have a COI as rep of the company

You can review a full press page here: http://www.belenechandia.com/press.aspx?inturlid=8&intid=0 Although this is our website, the publications as you can see are genuine. Here are a selection of links:

Belen Echandia on CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdRFrDEWH0

Vogue http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/090430-belen-echandia-launches-a-bespoke-s.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/news/080416-belen-echandia-angel-makeup-bag.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-10/071005-the-echandia-allure.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-04/070426-some-echandia-evening.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2004-12/041209-hot-property.aspx

Harpers http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/fashion/belen-echandia-clutch-115399

Our story on HandbagDesigner 101 http://www.handbagdesigner101.com/designer/18/belen_echandia_cawthra_jackie

Hilary Magazine – story etc http://www.hilary.com/fashion/belen-echandia.html

You Tube – all independent reviews MOMFLUENTIAL – you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siCyOGdu3To

www.momgenerations.com - you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8O1RagMWps http://momgenerations.com/2009/10/fashion-advice-belen-echandia/

If I can be of further assistance or answer further questions about my own conduct here, please let me know. findingtruths (talk) 14.28, 14 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findingtruths (talk • contribs)

Speedy keep. This nomination is a ridiculous abuse of process. The last AfD was closed as keep less than a week ago, on the grounds that the company was adequately notable, and any bias in the content could be cured by editing. This new nomination does nothing to address that: it is simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The anti-Belen lobby cannot simply wheel out a new SPA every few days to start a new AfD until they get the result they want. If you believe the last AfD was closed incorrectly, WP:Deletion review is the way to go, but if your only case is that you don't like the result, you will get short shrift there. Wikipedia is not the place to conduct your feud: whether Belen has an article is not determined by whether as a company it is good, bad, or indifferent, only by whether it meets the notability standard. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any recent notable press coverage? Now, I have no problem with the page because of the recent edits but I believe that the company should provide press coverage at least within the past year in order to be defined as notable. The CNN interview appears to be from 2005 and the other articles mentioned above are from 2009. I still believe that the content should be more scholarly in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChecktheRhyme (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

our rule is that notability is permanent. We are not a magazine reporting on only what's currently of interest, but a encyclopedia intended for permanence. If something was ever notable in the past, it remains suitable for an article. A similar company with adequate sourcing that operated 100 years ago and is long since closed would be notable as well as this one, though less likely to find someone here wanting to write about it. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can easily be modified to include "alternate opinions" if such are supported by reliable, verifiable, third party sources. The company being "notorious in their attempts to control content about their product" is of no relevance to a deletion discussion about this article. (It might be relevant to discussions about Wikipedia accounts which attempt to do so, but not to discussions about articles.) The company clearly gets enough coverage to be notable; it may not be scholarly coverage, but handbags aren't much of a scholarly subject. The Google results being drowned out by hundreds of mindless fashion blogs doesn't change the fact that some of the coverage is in many different mainstream publications. Amusingly, the company even gets name-checked in fiction [1]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not cleanup, and the current version of the article contains sufficient reliable sources (vogue is clearly a reliable source) to establish general notability. If a reliable source chooses to interview someone about a company they founded, that does count towards notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close This is a single use account that lasered onto this article just to delete it. Someone should check the IP to find out which rival it is, or who the ex-employee is that feels aggrieved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this article because of a tread on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which is in my watchlist, and thought I'd voice my opinion, my account is hardly single-use - quite the opposite. Actually this is the first AfD I've voted in, but my other 2,600 edits are in other areas. Obviously other editors have taken your word for it, without verifying it - Mein Führer. --George2001 ^hi 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Park the ego at the door, User:ChecktheRhyme nominated the article. You can also skip the Reductio ad Hitlerum references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a disruptive nomination contrary to to WP:DEL: "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the people heavily involved in trying to get this page deleted has requested a change of username. How does that work? I suppose there will be a public trace to previous usernames to prevent misuse? Findingtruths (talk 9.18, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.100.97 (talk)

Lock the page or just delete it. This page has been subjected to too much COI, undue attention, confusion, and wikilawyering to be objective. I'd rather see my own work deleted than become an instrument of pain but as most people want to keep this I suggest protecting it and leaving it unedited for a few weeks to let things cool down. Unixtastic (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as you've already !voted, would you please strike the delete portion of your common just above? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done - Unixtastic (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you , --Nuujinn (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the original publisher of this article. There has been 50+ edits since my last contribution. The current article looks nothing like it did when originally published. The COI tag was recently removed from the page. I am not going to edit this article again because of COI. Therefore, I no longer consider myself to be contributor, let alone a major contributor, to the page. In my opinion, your "COI, undue attention, confusion, and wikilawyering" arguments that point to myself carry only very little/no gravity going forward. Parafianowicz (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Parafianowicz, I didn't accuse you personally of causing 'undue attention, confusion, and wikilawyering' around this article, just of posting it under COI. Unixtastic (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for clarifying. Given the amount of discussion surrounding this page, I felt it necessary to state my current position as the original author of this page. Parafianowicz (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why was the closing of this obviously disruptive nomination reversed? It was closed as a keep just a few days prior. Its clear there are online references for the notability of the company. Move for closure as speedy keep. I'd close it myself but the New Editing Experience broke all my old tools. Syrthiss (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed it because there is a good faith !vote for deletion. That makes speedy keep inapplicable.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A delete opinion that appears to be based on faulty information regarding coverage of the subject in reliable sources (tho in good faith, I agree). Syrthiss (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, no real harm in letting the discussion stay open a few more days. If another deletion debate is opened soon, though, that would clearly be disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Springer[edit]

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

Non-notable financial advisor. Prod notice removed. He has been quoted or interviewed in some media but is not widely cited by peers. He does not seem to be regarded as an important figure in finance. Fails WP:BIO and especially WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any notable reference on the subject himself either. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the list of references looks impressive on first glance, but in almost every case it's just an example of him giving a piece of soundbite financial commentary to a news organisation in an article about something else entirely. I really can't see any actual substantial coverage of him, or his company, evidenced here. Hence, it fails the primary requirement of WP:BIO - trivial mentions, not substantial coverage. ~ mazca ^talk 12:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—appears to meet the general notability guideline, given that Mr Springer seems to be a go-to-guy for numerous influential news outlets. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 12:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect of the general guideline is that the topic itself should have received significant coverage. ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail..." I haven't seen any source addressing the subject directly in detail, so far. --Edcolins (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see he is quoted a lot, but I don't see reliable sources writing about him. Being quoted a lot by the press only means that his name is now int he contact list of news producers and reporters as somebody who can provide a quote or a soundbite on demand. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources aren't interviewing Mr. Springer about himself, what he is known for is his opinions in the financial world. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity... Mr. Springer's contributions appear on international news outlets. I found that Mr. Springer contributed to over 70 publications so far this year, not including his television appearances. JScottWL (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above, while this person seems to get a lot of mentions in passing, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage, which means it falls short of satisfying the WP:BIO notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question I am simply unsure of the manner in which being frequently interviewed as one of the sources for news programs or articles translates as being notable, and to what extent such interviews are acceptable 3rd party sources for the GNG. True, some notable people are sometimes frequently interviewed. I am not sure it runs the other way around, though, People can be picked for such interviews because they are cooperative, telegenic, well-spoken, and give good quotations--as well as being actually important. I think it would be relevant if the interviews were significant, not just being quoted as part of a story, but only one of the cited ones is [2]. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Case[edit]

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

Non-notable law firm. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The claim that it would have over 250 attorneys is not backed by any verifiable source. Delete. Edcolins (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious Delete I can't find anything about this firm that didn't come from the firm. Typically with a large firm you come across cases they've been in, other attorneys that work there (I can only find one), and articles written by their attorneys on legal issues. With this firm, I just keep coming back to their website and to standard firm-listing services (Legal 500, etc.). The article lacks any citations to notable sources, and I can find none, so I've got to think this is a delete.--TheOther Bob 14:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dubious notability, no relevant third party sources found, and the company's webpage is a mess of grammatical errors. Fishy at best. Hairhorn (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hairhorn. Extraordinarily fishy that a law firm has six offices, but that its website mentions only one attorney. No secondary coverage. I have suspicions of off-wiki agenda that I won't vocalize. THF (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I didn't AFD this because; of everything this user has added, this was the most plausible - I originally thought this was likely to be his practise, and he had just constructed some spam around it in a misguided promotional effort. - Especially considering the firm had made some serious claims (like having five offices, in multiple locations and an independent reference in the legal 500). - However, after doing some research I have serious doubts that this firm is anything except a bizarre hoax. The crux of my suspicion is that their london office is also listed as the home of an SEO company and a variety of other dodgy websites, I remain unsure about the precise nature of this user and this firm, but extremely suspicious of both and cannot see they merit anything other than a quick delete. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of notability suggested by secondary sources. Peacock (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search of the company found nothing in the form of case files mentioned or areas of expertise, which would be expected of a law firm this large.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Refaat[edit]

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

Came across this while dealing with linkspam from the author, all of which seems connected. No indication that he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. All I could find were a few clips of the subject acting as a pundit on arabic news channels like those linked. Fails WP:N, but inappropriate for a CSD and given his previous contributions I felt a PROD was likely to be removed by the creator. So AFD it is Ajbpearce (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO. --Edcolins (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, dubious promotional entry. Hairhorn (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet inclusion criteria outlined at WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Euryalus (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Faroh[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio and company. (See WP:BIO and WP:CORP). –BuickCentury Driver 10:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." No significant coverage for this fashion company. --Edcolins (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Footballers' Wives: Extra Time. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Akers[edit]

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

This article is currently an unreferenced BLP. A search for sources revealed an IMDB entry and a few trivial mentions in references of similar quality, but no significant coverage in reliable sources that would show notability. Peter Karlsen (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Footballers' Wives: Extra Time as a reasonable search term to the series for which she has whatever note she might. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. That's probably the best option; notability is limited otherwise. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Jay[edit]

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

Non-notable adult film actress. Appears to fail WP:GNG (lack of multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage) and WP:PORNSTAR. The 4chan-related "notability" only counts as notability if it's based again on reliable sources, of which I have been able to find none. A previous claim of a nomination for an AVN award was deleted when the source for it didn't list the actress under any of her names. Most of the proffered citations are from a single fansite or primary sources, the exceptions are two program listings for Playboy Radio, and a single mention of her name with no other information in a list of people performing at an event. Also a declined PROD from a previous editor. j⚛e decker ^talk 08:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Delete as non-notable on above grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom The Eskimo (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG), I cannot find such coverage, therefore there does not seem enough verifiable information to maintain an article; also concerns about biography of living people issues Chzz ► 15:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva[edit]

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

The article has been tagged since 2008 as unreferenced and does not demonstrate notability (even unsourced claims). Joe407 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The listing appears to be implying that Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva does not demonstrate notability. This seems inflamatory and starts off the discussion by misleading others into discussing secondary considerations such as fame, importance, or popularity of Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva when they need to focus on finding enough reliable third-party sources (which in most cases does not include websites). Wikipedia covers notable topics—those that have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources. The topic Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva will be deemed appropriate for inclusion if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Midrash Shmuel is a well-known yeshiva for English-speaking students from outside Israel. I added a few references relating to the program itself. It is also mentioned on many biography pages of rabbis — do you want me to add them also? Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 17:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School seems notable due to references to it in sources—The Jewish Chronicle and The Jewish Press. Bus stop (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Chronicle article is about Rabbi Hughes, not about the school. It mentions that he studied there and is on the staff of the school. The Jewish Press article is about Rachel Factor and talks about a planned, future program. Neither one establishes notability for the school.

I'm just trying to find you sources that mention the yeshiva, since you said it had no proof of notability at all. The places which list the yeshiva in a directory format are Nefesh B'Nefesh's Alternative School Directory and The Jewish Travelers' Resource Guide. Yoninah (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for confirmation that it exists. I'm looking for a WP:RS to give it real coverage in a way that shows that it is notable for purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. What is special/unique/notable about this yeshiva that it should be here other than "It exists"? Joe407 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of not finding as much coverage of Haredi yeshivas as we do of secular institutions. Midrash Shmuel is well-known here in Jerusalem for its English-language curriculum and semicha program for foreign students. This is not a small learning program — it has nearly 200 bachurim plus a summer program, and it has been a mainstay in Shaarei Chesed for almost two decades. The yeshiva's website lists its accomplishments, but we're not able to use that since it's a primary source. What else can we do? Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-known is not the same as notable by Wikipedia criteria, maybe there is no way that you can show it is notable by our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

colleges, like the one at hand, are considered inherently notable. notability is not an issue once RS's establish that it exists.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe: Asking what makes any yeshiva notable is like asking what makes any college or university notable since they all perform the same functions and have identical objectives. The differences (aside from size and location and numbers of students) are often mostly in nuances and shades. After all, a college with a BA program does not have to justify why it should be included on Wikipedia and no reasonable editor would ask to know what makes the BA of college Y different or unique compared to the BA on college Z. Likewise any serious yeshiva's program is much like that of others, they are headed by rabbis and teach Torah and Talmud and depending on the type of students and program additional sources on top of that, but the programs are all the same in essence. The fact that this institution has been cited in various media and sources, no matter how briefly, is a big plus because often yeshivas do not seek or get even that kind of recognition in secular sources that they stay far away from. Methinks you are being a little too tough in this instance when you should be thinking of withdrawing this nomination instead. IZAK (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability of yeshivas I agree that there is a challenge. As User:Brewcrewer points out institutions of higher education have a degree of inherent notability (forgive me for not hunting down the policy right now). Two questions: One - Is a yeshiva the equivalent of a college or a university? Two - What are the cut offs? If I have 7 guys in my living room every day learning with a rabbi, can I add my yeshiva (Yeshivas Kol Bechi Tinokos) to wikipedia?

Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Joe: 7 guys in your living room is not a yeshiva or anything for that matter, and you know it, please stop being absurd and demeaning the seriousness of this subject. Here you have quite a few editors come together and based on a fairly good example of WP:CONSENSUS are all in agreement that this yeshiva is notable while your fictional and imaginary "7 guys" hanging out in your living room may have the makings of something one day but right now they are just wannabees (at best). From your last comment it therefore seems that the entire purpose of this nomination in fact violates both WP:POINT and WP:AGF since an AfD is NOT the forum to have this discussion. Try taking it to WP:TALKJUDAISM and see what other Judaic editors say. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe: Here is another answer for you, in the USA, most well-known yeshivas, both Hasidic and non-Hasidic are classified as both colleges and universities in states where they exist, see the article about Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools to understand and learn more about this fact. Thanks, IZAK (talk)
Keep. Seems properly referenced. Marokwitz (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to repeat myself but could you please clarify what you feel are the proper references? As I noted above, both the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish Press articles make only passing mention of the yeshiva. Joe407 (talk) 13:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe: Even "Passing" references are fine and 100% ok as WP:RS and for WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY because they prove that a subject truly exists and is on the map of reality. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What type of sources about the yeshiva are available in Hebrew or other languages besides English? Anyway, I think we should keep because even with the English sources, a skim through the article suggests that it's properly sourced. Schools are notable and this yeshiva ought to have independent sources describing it and giving it some type of assessment for prospective students. If that doesn't exist, I would be very surprised. --La comadreja _{formerly AFriedman} RESEARCH (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article has been improved now with at least 14 WP:RS and because this is a well-known WP:NOTABLE institution in the Haredi world in Israel. It would have been far better to seek input at WP:TALKJUDAISM first rather than go this route. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided in the article support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I challenged the notability of this institution it was under the guideline of WP:N which states ""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." I have nothing against this yeshiva but did not see neither a statement of notability nor reliable sources with significant coverage. To be honest, even now, when the article has lots of <ref> tags, I am not seeing reliable sources with significant coverage. All I am seeing are sources that make trivial mention of the subject. Yes, they confirm the existence of the institution but do nothing for its notability. Joe407 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is implied through the fact that Midrash Shmuel has produced so many hundreds of graduates who are now making a significant contribution to the English-speaking Torah world. Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the past 2 days combing the web for sources, and this is all I've managed to come up with. Even adding the rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Binyomin Moskovits, to the search is coming up with nothing. Aside from its website, this yeshiva is not looking for publicity. Searching on Google Israel is futile, as this is an English-speaking yeshiva for overseas students. Unless and until The Jerusalem Post or Haaretz comes up with an expose, I'm afraid this is all we've got.

I am concerned with this AfD, and the recently closed AfD for Rabbi Moshe Sacks, that Wikipedia rules simply don't take into account the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas. Here you have a well-known (in Israel), popular, two-decade-old yeshiva (which is also an address for local English-speaking girls looking for a shidduch with American, English and South African boys), but since it's not written up in some journal, we have to say it's not notable. Instead we must say, as Brewcrewer notes, that colleges are inherently notable; otherwise, we will never fill up the red links on List of yeshivas with bona fide articles. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Yoninah. We need to figure out a way for the WP notability policies to take into account subject such as these. I would be quite happy to see a notability policy for yeshiva's (or other notable institutions that do not naturally garner much press). For the moment, this yeshiva seems to fail WP:N. While I don't want to be the guy waving the rulebook around, in a way I'm ok with that because without a policy of some sort, what stops me from having an entry for every 10 man kollel in a shul? Joe407 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, what do you mean by "well-said" to Yoninah when she is opposing you and working hard to stop this AfD by beefing up the article [3] by adding many excellent WP:RS, and again, no one in their right minds is proposing that a collection of ten men in a shull be given their own WP article. Stick to the point of your own AfD and that is that the institution you chose to nominate for this AfD is a very prominent and well-known institution in the Torah world. 100% of gentiles, as well as most secular Jews, have absolutely no clue what a yeshiva is, let alone name any, so your feistiness in this situation is gratuitous and counter-productive, and stands in the way of those editors who, based on their contributions, do know something about this subject and given enough WP:AGF and by you avoiding WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, they are writing, editing and contributing to such articles, no less than other editors are doing in the tens of thousands of other subjects that Wikipedia has articles about and about which one does not opine if one knows nothing about that subject. All this should be self-evident, obvious and logical to any rational, reasonable and fair-minded editor. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment of "Well said" was because I agree with Yoninah's concern regarding both "this AfD, and the recently closed AfD for Rabbi Moshe Sacks, that Wikipedia rules simply don't take into account the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas.". She is correct. The correct solution is for us to fix the policy not ignore the policy. As I said above, the problem with having no policy is that you have yeshiva's that really have no claim to notability with articles on WP simply because the bochrim thought it was a laugh or because someone in the hanhalah realized that it is a good way to push upward on google's ratings. I'll say it again: I have no beef with this institution and am not a rabid deletionist (feel free to look through my edit history of the past two years). I do want standards on WP and at the moment this article does not (and possibly cannot) uphold those standards. The beautiful part is that on WP, we can change the standards. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 07:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas simply don't take into account Wikipedia rules regarding inclusion of a written topic in its encyclopedia. Why would anyone want adjust Wikipedia to go against the publicity-shy nature of Haredi rabbis and yeshivas by bending Wikipedia's article includsion rules to give publicity to people intentionally trying to avoid it? Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is slanted to support the Haredi rabbis and yeshivas desire for unpublished efforts, which is a beautiful thing about Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close - This AfD posting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midrash Shmuel is inconsistent with a request to delete the Midrash Shmuel school (Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva) article. Also, changing Template:La after discussion has begun[4] still doesn't fix the problem. Also, it would have influenced the discussion had it been known from the beginning that this was the second request to delete this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medrash Shmuel yeshiva. Since the AfD request is defective, it should be closed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uzma Gamal, this is not a court of law where cases are thrown out on a technicality. In editing the page during the AfD process, I noticed that the page name, Midrash Shmuel, more commonly refers to an aggadic midrash on the Books of Samuel, so I made the disambiguation page and fixed all the titles. And your first assertion, that if Haredi yeshivas don't want publicity, they don't belong on Wikipedia, is ludicrous. I think we can end this AfD by stating that all colleges — even those you aren't familiar with — are inherently notable.
- In the meantime, I've added another ref from the South African Jewish Report, something about ongoing alumni activity, and information about college credits through Touro College and Hebrew Theological College. By the way, I looked up the page about Toras Moshe, another English-speaking, post-high-school yeshiva in Jerusalem, and (whew!) was able to reference it with adequate sources before another AfD could be opened. I think we Jewish editors need to go around doing more writing and expanding and less deletion-patrolling so we can improve the overall project. Yoninah (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - For those who are unfamiliar with the whole phenomenon of post-high-school study programs for overseas students in Israel, I've added a background article. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yoninah, schools are not inherently notable. However, it would be fair to say that just about all schools receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources such that a school as a topic will usually meet Wikipedia:Notability. If any significant amount of money went into building Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva and running Midrash Shmuel Yeshiva or if it is government money, then many people likely have written about it and there will be written government records about the school. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck Roleplaying Game[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non-notable book/game. The link in reference 1 "Kenneth Hite's Out of the Box column" appears to be dead, and I couldn't find significant coverage elsewhere. The book itself was issued as a limited print run and no further print runs are planned. However it is also available online. Having perused the book itself, it's around 30 pages in total, of which a fair amount is white space or lists of stats etc. Assuming the article is deleted, I will add the book's download website to the External Links at the page of the author, so those interested can refer to it directly rather than having a separate placeholder article on Wikipedia. Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Star Wreck. For that matter, Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning should also be merged and redirected into Star Wreck. Although I believe the game can stand alone if sources were dug up, I believe that since these are all one universe (first move, game based on movie, second movie), the article can be significantly cleaned up if they are merged together. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. It is a minor yet somewhat popular RPG. It appears reliable independent sources used to exist but have expired or whatever; hopefully some can be dug up. Merging it with Star Wreck would be awkward but perhaps the only solution.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of families[edit]

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

This unreferenced list is biologically meaningless, technically unfeasible and encyclopaedically undesirable.

The critical point is that there is no uniform definition of a family in different taxa, but is rather just a taxonomic convenience; a family in one group could represent a much larger taxon (in age, or genetic divergence, or whatever) than in another group. There are a [large] number of species concepts, but there is no such thing as a family concept, and there is no connection between a family of flies and a family of rodents, say, than the standard "-idae" suffix (and even that need no longer apply when comparing between different nomenclatural codes ICZN, ICBN, ICNB). There is therefore no justifiable reason to group these disparate items in a single list.
A complete list of all families across all kingdoms would be much too big for a single list, and there would rightly be pressure for it to be split up. It's already horribly unwieldy, and it's only got birds, mammals and vascular plants. The real diversity lies elsewhere, so this is only a tiny fraction of the eventual size. If the list is going to be split, then it might as well be split up into sections small enough to comfortably fit into the articles for the parent taxa. Indeed, such lists are already in place for most taxa, as they should be, rendering this behemoth redundant. According to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections".
This list is unlikely to be maintained as individual taxonomies are updated, meaning that even if it could be accurately sourced once (which I doubt), it would rapidly deteriorate. Maintaining separate lists for each taxon (either as separate list articles, or within the confines of an article on the parent taxon) is much easier, because the attentions of the relevant project will be focussed on them already. I doubt that we can expect editors to also maintain another page outside their projects that they will probably be unaware of.
The current consensus on the talk page, particularly among the biologists who have contributed, is that this list is worthless.

For all these reasons, the list must go. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size of a list is never a valid reason to delete it. If it gets too long, it can be divided into smaller list. Having list for each kingdom or other subgroup of course would be the most logical thing to do. And not everyone on the talk page agreed it should be deleted, only a few participating there anyway. As for the complaint about the list isn't complete or new things are created that no one has updated yet, so what? That can be said about any list out there. Popular culture things might have more fans viewing them and updating those articles than scientific ones, but that is certainly no reason to delete the educational ones. Rename it to be something that says what it is. Family is a scientific classification taught in all schools in America, and I assume probably everywhere, and when you look up detailed information about a species, it list "family" as a category there and then tells you what family it is in. Dream Focus 11:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have missed my point. Just because one can produce a list of families, that doesn't mean that it would be meaningful to do so. These different taxonomic entities have nothing in common. We might as well have a List of people called John, or a List of buildings with three storeys; they would be equivalent. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What they have in common is they are part of the Family (biology) classification. This serves as a useful reference for those searching for something. Hopefully additional information will be added over time to make it more useful. There is no reason to delete a valid scientific list. Please see WP:LIST and WP:ALMANAC. Dream Focus 11:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:ALMANAC gives an example of what are good list, in the biology section, including List of Anuran families and North American birds. Having an article for the various families of things, if they don't all already exist, is doable, with links to them from a main page here. Dream Focus 11:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no reason to delete a valid scientific list." This is not a valid scientific list. That's my point. Families within a group are similar, so it makes sense to list them together (e.g. List of Anuran families). The only connection they have with families in other groups is an arbitrary rank. We should not be listing articles by an arbitrary criterion. I have read WP:LIST and WP:ALMANAC and see nothing which states that a list of this kind is desirable. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary rank? The scientific community has divided things into these "ranks", and certainly not for arbitrary reasons. List of everything the scientific community has decided for centuries now to divide into the category of families would be clearer name perhaps, but would be too long, and shouldn't be necessary. Dream Focus 11:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, arbitrary. A family is just the rank between the genus and the order. There is no further definition than that, certainly not that applies across the tree of life. It is very important that you understand this. The rank of family (just like every other rank except the species) is arbitrary. The suggestion that these things have been stable for centuries is also massively and demonstrably false and belies a lack of understanding of taxonomy. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the top right box of this AFD it list a previous AFD for something related to a family on a television show, nothing to do with this here. Can someone please fix that? Dream Focus 11:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that a lot of lists already exist for some of the various subgroups. The bottom of the article had a link to the category:Lists of animals which has a lot of them there. I had searched Wikipedia for "List of" and "Families" and found some things biological related listed among the results. One master list showing everything else would be helpful though, and one of the reasons list exist is to aid in navigation, as well as to group information. Dream Focus 11:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been added to the Article Rescue Squadron list, to hopefully get help organizing the information, and finding all the list out there for a more complete article. Dream Focus 11:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stemonitis' arguments are convincing enough. I am not myself a biologist, and am perfectly happy to credit that the biologists who consider this list fatally flawed know what they're talking about. Ravenswing 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an argument from authority which is not policy-based. The comments of those who claim to be experts are, in fact, contrary to policy. What we require is evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While I respect the opinions of the biology experts, I'm unsure if deletion is the answer here. It seems like this is an organizational problem. I was unable to find even an estimate for the number of families that exist, but I am sure the number is quite high; far too large for a single list. Perhaps it would make more sense to create smaller articles like List of families in Kingdom Animalia, List of families in Kingdom Plantae, etc. (assuming that even these would be manageable lists, perhaps you'd have to divide it by Phylum) and turn this article into a "list of lists" which points to the smaller, more manageable lists. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're only here to vote keep because it was listed at ARS. Inclusionist! 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I !voted keep on rescue-tagged articles 100% of the time, as some do, then you might have a point. SnottyWong ^yak 14:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. The notion of listing families across the larger groupings is just taxonomically meaningless. I'm sure we do already have family listings at the appropriate level, i.e. for Orders, possibly for some of the Classes. Although there could be scope for listing some disconnected families across relevant groups (Ganoid fish is the classic example), these are few and need to be handled separately - they'd be lost within a big list like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unmaintainable. The category system does this much better. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Firstly there is no category for taxonomic families (that I could find, anyway). Secondly, the category system doesn't provide any hint as to what types of organisms are included in a family. If you were looking at a category and saw one of the entries was Meleagrididae, you'd probably have no idea that it included turkeys. This list, however, provides that minimum amount of information. We have hundreds if not thousands of articles on these families (see how many blue links there are in this list), it makes sense to have both categories and lists to serve as navigational aids. See WP:CLN. If the list is too long, then split it up. SnottyWong ^chatter 14:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to others on the splitting of the article, though I think at a level below phylum the divisions are going to be duplicative. As to giving some idea of what's in the various families, though, that's exactly why I think relying on the categories is a better idea. Turkeys may be in Meleagrididae today, but taxonomy remains fluid, and there are always genuses and species being moved from group to group. This list makes yet another place that has to be maintained along with the individual taxon articles. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nominator (as well as some users on the article talk page) have noted that taxonomic families are considered "useless" or "arbitrary" by experts. By this logic, should we then also delete all of the hundreds or thousands of articles on individual families? Whether or not you think that families are useful is not important. They exist, and they are documented. I happen to think that Britney Spears songs are useless, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is entirely untrue. I have argued that the list is useless and that the rank is arbitrary, not that the taxa are arbitrary, or that an article on a family is useless. Please do not misrepresent my opinions. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No-one here is claiming that families are useless (that's a separate rant against Linnaean taxonomy), or even that lists (plural) of families are useless. The problem is that taxonomy is a tree structure, and this article is attempting to take a great many disconnected sets of families (the sub-families of each Order) and to bundle all these sets together as if that made sense. It is pointless to list groups of families from different branches of the bigger tree - there's just no meaning to it.

The issue of list size is secondary to this. Even with the tools to handle it (and Fishbase or Tolweb are very good at this - go take a look) it's still meaningless to attempt to do this slice. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no point having a list like this. If you want to help out with Biology articles, list the families in their respective Orders instead, if they are not already there. If this list would ever be completed, it would contain 1000s of family names without any context. I have seen something similar in the area i am working in, somethin like "list of moths". There are well over 100.000 species, why would we want them in one single list? Please spend your time on other things instead, there is an enormous amount of work to be done, dont waste it on these types of articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not a valid reason for deletion. If it gets too long, it'll be broken up into smaller articles. Dream Focus 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets broken up into separate articles, in this case there seems to be no reason to have an omnibus list article in the first place. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be divided into dozens of articles, all of which need to be listed somewhere, along with a description as to why they were grouped that way, be it species, or alphabetical order, or both, whatever. Dream Focus 20:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. Is there a problem with that? Ravenswing 21:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest that the closing admin takes considerably more note of the biologists who have posted here than the non-experts. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or just take note of the fact that this classification is used in every encyclopedia and biology textbook there is. If different groups debate what gets listed where, then just pick whichever encyclopedia is used by more universities, and trust their judgment. Every single species article on Wikipedia list what Family it belongs to. Do you want to go through and remove all of that from thousands of articles, simply because some of them might be in dispute somewhere? Dream Focus 12:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point again. We are not arguing about the validity of families. We are arguing abut the validity of listing them all together (or trying to), as if they had something in common. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What they have in common is that they are already listed together everywhere that list them. Dream Focus 12:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I can't follow your logic here. "They are already listed together everywhere that list them." What does this mean? I can only parse it as a truism. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't encyclopedias and textbooks that list this sort of thing, list them in groups, based on families? Dream Focus 12:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within limited groups, yes. They may I suppose provide a list of families of frogs and toads, or a list of families of birds, say, but I have never seen any printed work attempt to provide a list of all families, extinct and extant, across all kingdoms of life since Carl Linnaeus (and even he didn't use the term "family" in those lists). I have always maintained that within restricted groups, a list of families is entirely desirable (within existing articles, where appropriate). Frog families are never, to my knowledge, listed alongside families of cyanobacteria, slime moulds and ferns. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We can thus split it into many different list, some of which already exist. List of frog families for all the frog stuff, etc. etc. And link to them from here, as a list of all Wikipedia articles on families. I'll go get started on that now. Dream Focus 13:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a case where categories really would be better than lists. Although listing the frog and toad families together (but not, I'd suggest even all the herps in one list) is of manageable size and to some useful extent encyclopedic, it's much better done by annotating each family article and then using automatic collation to make the lists or trees up from this dynamically (i.e. use categorization and category tree browsers). A manually updated list like this would be lots of work to build and would inevitably be of poor quality, owing to that difficulty. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what someone did with List of Canadian plants by family? It then has all of them in sublist in alphabetical order, there thousands of things listed, in a nice logical organized manner. Dream Focus 14:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian plants by family is not a good example to be followed. It is entirely unreferenced, avowedly incomplete, and ill-organised. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete is not a valid reason to eliminate a list. Never has been, never was. List of plants by family Dream Focus 14:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasoning of Stemonitis and Andy Dingley. This list would be a impossibility, in practice, to develop; categories are what is called for here. —innotata 02:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to speak for Stemonitis, this isn't what I meant at all and I don't think it's what they meant either. Volume would be a problem and there are technical solutions to that which might favour use of categories over lists. However that isn't the real issue - the problem is that it's simply nonsensical to take lists of families from one Order and to put them alongside lists of families from another Order. There is no meaning to this. They are not comparable. It is utterly pointless to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just think that the impossibility of the article is about enough, let alone the other problems pointed out. —innotata 16:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (i) unsourced and unmaintainable (keeping it updated for reclassifications would be a nightmare), (ii) lack of formal definition for 'family' (iii) lack of a consistent informal definition across higher taxa (making a list across them a dog's breakfast) (iv) highly incomplete, with a complete list (should this be achievable) being of massive size. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List are as valid as categories per WP:CLS. Families are commonly used as a way for structuring taxonomic lists. For examples, see IUCN red list of threatened plants and Check list of the freshwater fishes. We have numerous taxonomic lists and there seems to be no good reason to discriminate against families when reliable sources such as these do not do so. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Families are commonly used as a way for structuring taxonomic lists."

What's a "taxonomic list"? Taxonomy is, by definition, based around taxons or clades and these are assembled into tree structures, topologically more complex than lists (i.e. it rapidly becomes nonsensical to use "taxonomy" and "simple list" in the same sentence). This is the root problem here: not one of data volume, not one of biological classification, but one of theoretical knowledge management. When the underlying structure is more complex than a list, it's meaningless to extract large lists as arbitrary slices through it. Taking a 6th sub-level slice (of a classical structure where ranking is biologically somewhat arbitrary to begin with anyway) through the complete kingdom is nonsense.

The two lists you cite are an irrelevance here. Red lists are themselves arbitrary. Rather than being based on the taxonomy, they're an externally judged list (those which are threatened), i.e. an arbitrary set imposed by some external arbiter. This is an additional definition of "list membership" added from outside the taxonomy, something we're lacking in this article. The point of the Red list is "those species that are threatened", but this article has no such point. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The listing of items in alphabetical order is commonly done in works of reference such as encyclopedia. The use of lists as indexes is well established in Wikipedia and their purpose includes browsing, content creation and lookup. Your insistence that this be done in a particular way does not seem supported by policy. One of the points of WP:CLS is to explain that we derive some synergy by approaching such matters of structure from different angles. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's the wrong way to present taxonomy. A rank like family requires context, since it doesn't have any info on divergence in itself: a family of insects are much more divergent than a family of birds. We already have families listed where they belong: under their respective orders or other groups. Narayanese (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Universally recognized scientific category. The variation in the use of the term in different phyla is irrelevant, especially since the list is divided by phyla. The fact that no taxonomic ranks except species in sexually reproducing organisms have an exact definition is irrelevant--most mental concepts, even scientific ones, have a similarly non-exact definition, and there are 100s of thousands of papers on the grouping of particular taxa into families. Since unquestionably RSs for what valid family names are accepted exist, it is much better defined that most Wikipedia lists. That actual taxonomic structures are trees does not prevent scientists (and others) for listing them alphabetically--because such lists serve in essence as an index to the position in the tree. (Otherwise you have to previously know the classification before you can find where it is in the tree, which rather defeats the purpose), There is no reason not to duplicate lists if both versions are useful--lists are navigational devices, and iuseful is a valid criterion. And no list that people maintain is unmaintainable. (There is a scientific school of thought within cladistics that deprecates the use of traditional named groups, but essentially all practical biologists and indexes use them nonetheless. Wikipedia reflects what is generally used, not what theorists believe ought to be used. ) DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Weltraum[edit]

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

Barely has any assertion of notability, but I've declined A7 on this. It may well be salvageable, but for now, I don't see how it meets inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found in either English or Russian searches. The Russian page is equally lacking, but that's their problem. --Triwbe (talk) 07:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no Google hits, no claim to notability, publications are red linked, and the text is promotional. I nominated this for speedy deletion because there's no indication of significance. JNW (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, promo stuff. Significantly, the publications are also red links in the Russian language version of WIkipedia. Emeraude (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requesting that this be salted as well. As long as the article stays up the sole interested account continuously removes the templates, and there's absolutely no sign of a block. Next stop, page protection. Parenthetically, this is one of several instances I've involved myself in this weekend that evidence how Wikipedia doesn't work. JNW (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on salting - same problem with ruwiki article. Disagree on Wikipedia not working - the disruptive account has meanwhile been blocked. It may not be fastest or most efficient, but it does get things done... eventually. :-) --illythr (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I nominated it for speedy as this is blatant spam couldn't find anything on google either. Mo ainm~Talk 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above-- no indication of notability, and the article is the lone contribution of an SPA who was warned several times not to remove deletion tags. I'm always willing to change my mind if someone can show that this person's works have attained notoriety. Mandsford 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything on this person in the Russian segment of the internet and will initiate an AFD in ruwiki shortly as well. --illythr (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- A search on the Russian site Yandex.ru reveals three hits, one of them the Russian wikipedia page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Adam and Eve[edit]

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

This is not a helpful list. If people want to read the genealogies in the Bible, then can look at 1 Chronicles, chapters 1 to 9, or whatever. This list doesn't make the genealogy easier to understand. Plus, it has a whole lot of question marks, and few of the wikilinks are actually to articles about those people St Anselm (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that StAnselm's argument is WP:USELESS. That's not enough. The article collects information from various books of the bible into a single list, and saying that someone can just look it up in the bible is like saying that anyone can just do their own research instead of reading a Wikipedia article. Why does Wikipedia exist then? We cover notable topics in Wikipedia, whether or not a given editor finds the topic personally useful. Many bible topics including this one are notable and this may include many "minor" or lesser known characters, but there are major ones on the list as well. Cullen328 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that we already have List of minor Biblical figures, Sons of Noah, Abraham's family tree and Genealogies of Genesis? St Anselm (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is good information, and is nicely compiled. It has references. Also, it could be under the category of Christianity. So yeah, definitely keep. Endofskull (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, a fairly efficient way of showing the relationship between the progeny of Adam and Eve as stated in the Bible; this one goes 55 generations, although there's room for more (Jesus was at the 76th generation). Hopefully, someone will add a few words for some of these folks-- "built the Ark", "lived 969 years", "first murder victim", "spilled his seed", etc. I'm surprised at the argument that this should be deleted because people "can look at 1 Chronicles, chapters 1 to 9, or whatever". Maybe all Wikipedia articles should be redirected to a sign that says "Go to the public library." Mandsford 18:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - simple, straightforward layout that is referenced. As for, "Plus, it has a whole lot of question marks, and few of the wikilinks are actually to articles about those people" - these are areas for improvement, not good arguments for deletion. LadyofShalott 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above; The list is simple, with links to the Biblical people, and with specific references. I cannot find such an efficient article on the subject on the entire Internet. -— AMK152 ^{(t • c)} 20:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just on the basis of formatting and readability, this has the edge on 1 Chronicles. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Totally agree, I have no intention of reading 1 Chronicles. The Steve 11:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most useful for our core readership: students. I have one quibble: it's too long for easy editing. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strictly speaking, this should contain everyone listed in Wikipedia, or at least everyone ever mentioned in the bible. But be that as it may, I find in practice that anything below the first screenful is an unreadable mess; I cannot establish how most of these people are descended from Adam. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have ideas for how to improve it, then we'd be delighted to hear them. However this is at present our best effort. It seems odd that some are calling to keep it on the basis that it's more readable than the prose sources of Chronicles, but others wish to delete it because it's not readable enough. If we already have some idealised genealogy display for this, please point me at it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll agree that this list is very useful for some people, but for me it is somewhat problematic as a WP article. The format, while very creative, doesn't really suit WP--it doesn't conform to any existing template or style. That may seem like a pointless complaint, but it would be very hard for other editors to contribute to this page as it is the project of a small team of users. It just seems like the creators of this really should create their own website for this rather than store it on Wikipedia in their own format. I'm sure the editors are acting in good faith (no pun intended) but I feel the page has potential WP:OWN issues due to its 'pet project' feel.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Sunderland[edit]

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

WP is not a memorial, and this is not a notable subject. Their achievements played out on a very local and not on an encyclopedic level. Furthermore, there are no reliable, third-party sources that attest to notability, as a Google search (such as this one) confirms. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of formulating a new rule that if the only reference you can find for a person's date of death is the web page of the funeral home where their visitation was held, then the person probably isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopedia (the deaths of notable people are actually reported as news, after all.) Other than that, let's see what else we have for sources: the annual report of the local John Howard Society, the newsletter of the school board he worked for, and an e-mail post to a genealogy discussion list. Yep, notability lacking. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But...what if they also have a MySpace? Then they MUST be notable... Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established nor apparent. PK T(alk) 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs stated above, there appears to be a lack of references that might establish some notability. --Stormbay (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not's encyclopedic a biography of a teacher... « CA » ^{What your problem?} 19:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shopping Malls in Batu Pahat[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Spam. This user is creating tons of directories for this non-notable city. Corvus cornix_talk 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I'm not sure if Batu Pahat itself is non-notable. But I don't think this list is worth keeping. The list was nominated for speedy deletion, but there is no talk page to explain why the speedy delete nomination was contested. The edit summaries also don't explain why the nomination was contested, so I'm guessing there's no valid reason for keeping. NotARealWord (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Endofskull (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (although the nominator has withdrawn their nom, there are still valid Delete !votes). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Piskor[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer that fails WP:GNG, and who has never played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the top goalscorer in an amateur league isn't notable enough for an article on wikipedia. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Piskor is notable by virtue of coverage in reliable sources, including the national newspaper of record, Luxemburger Wort, as cited in the article. WP:NFOOTBALL details criteria for presumptions of notability. I would, however, also contend that being named the best footballer in a country (as Piskor was last year) should lead to a presumption of notability. Bastin 16:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Question: Do appearances in the Europa League such as this one count towards meeting WP:NSPORT? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the qualifying rounds for the Europa League and Champions League are not fully pro, precisely because non-fully-pro teams like Differdange compete in them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that has exactly what relevance in an article that meets WP:GNG, per WP:ATHLETE's statement: Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline? Bastin 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does he really meet WP:GNG though? The only sources that discuss him in any detail are this and this, but they come from the same publisher, so "are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". Since GNG requires multiple reliable sources, this isn't enough. Are there other sources about him that aren't in the article yet? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you agree that references from other sources make it notable. Added two references from L'essentiel (the most-read newspaper in Luxembourg). Bastin 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's more like it. Keep as meeting the GNG per coverage like this and this. The counter-argument that someone will probably present is that the GNG discounts "routine sports journalism", but to my mind that goes beyond routine. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator, I'm now satisfied that he meets WP:GNG and willing to withdraw the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teel James Glenn[edit]

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

This person does not meet our notability requirements for people. There are no sources to indicate significant coverage of this person and I am unable to find any myself. SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article appears to be a COI, but given his resume there might be sources out there; here's a link to an article in the New York Post: [5]. Also [6], [7], [8]. This might do the trick, but the article will still need massive clean up to meet guidelines. JNW (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, managed to miss those somehow when I was checking for sources pre-nom. Personally, I'd say that they still don't demonstrate significant coverage as they are about the stunt school, rather than him. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, though the mentions within the articles are significant. My take is that if all the chaff were cut and the article trimmed to content provided by these sources it might have a chance. Thanks for your attention to this and the related article [9]. JNW (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure, there's not more than a couple of sentences about him in any of them, but I think I may have higher standards than most for inclusion. Would do more, but I think problems with DYK are more pressing. SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage. Racepacket (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per SmartSE. Some coverage in passing -- but either as an employee of a perhaps-notable fight school or as a sort of "community notice" article. Neither strikes me as significant enough to support an article. --TheOther Bob 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Sleeper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at the previous AFD in 2006, but still unsourced after a further 4 years. No significant coverage found. He has excellent taste in music, and may be known to Lee Perry fans, but his claim to notability is a bit thin, and unless some sources can be found can we really have an article here? Michig (talk) 16:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... this takes me back... when I first became acquainted with Mick Sleeper, I was still using Gopher to access the internet. ~~Keep~~ "Soundz from the hotline", CMJ New Music, p. 54, July 1997, retrieved October 31, 2010 Catfish Jim & the soapdish

I think we're going to need more than one mention of his website.--Michig (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about [10] [11]? They're somewhere lower than I would usually accept as reliable sources, but given the nature of genre specific music journalism, they're about as good as we can expect. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The United Reggae one is promotional blurb possibly written by him, the other would struggle to be regarded as a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... and try as I might, I can't find much else... A Google books search turns up this, which conceivably might have something, but unfortunately there's no preview. This has a chapter on Lee Perry written by him, but again I can't access it. I'll probably have to change my opinion to weak delete. It just doesn't look like he meets WP:N or any of the specialist categories he might be shoe-horned into. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For lack of sources after so many years. If this person does somehow pass WP:BIO as suggested in the previous AfD, then I think this is one occasion that Ignore all rules can be used as an argument towards deletion. NotARealWord (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of genuinely reliable sources, delete. If better sources are found in the future, then a better article can certainly be recreated at that time. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Campbell Wilson[edit]

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

BLP with no third-party sources and no indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 16:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what's here does not amount to notability DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Preux[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since early 2008, a source search turned up nothing sans a couple copy-pastes of us. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the source for most of the article was the bio on the official site [12]. I tried to tone down the language ("finally achieved his breakthrough", "able to work all nights long on his second composition"), but agree that it could be improved further. I don't see why the whole article should be deleted as a BLP, but would be fine with deleting the Biography section. --asqueella (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the harder to search cases I've found; both the stage and real name produce dozens of false hits. That said, the one solid news-ish reference is the one Billboard mention. I'm going to have to say delete for lack of adequate coverage. Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that it's very hard to research. His main composing career was primarily from 1970 to the late 1990s in Europe, for which there are very few online press archives available. But this in Google Books [13] verifies that his Les cris de la Liberté was composed and played for the Bicentennial of the French Revolution with multiple performances in Paris [14]. This [15] (in Italian) says that one of the musical references in Wyclef Jean's 1997 album The Carnival was to Saint-Preux's Concerto Pour Une Voix (Concerto per una voce). Many of his recordings were originally released on vinyl or early cds and audio cassette and are hard to document, but assuming the documentation on Amazon is correct, My Prophecy was released by Sony [16], Concerto Pour Une Voix on Accord Records (quite a well-known label in the 80s and 90s) [17], 20 Ans on BMG [18], The Last Opera on Sony France [19], his 2005 Concerto Pour deux Voix on Warner. [20]. Many others of his were released on Pomme Music (a well-known French independent label)[21] and there's a reference in Billboard to him being signed by CBS France in 1972 [22]. The discography alone meets criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO and arguably criteria 3. for WP:COMPOSER Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More There's a fairly lengthy review of his 1973 LP album Concerto pour une Voix, which also has several other of his compositions in Gramophone, May 1973 (It was re-released on CD in 1995). The single recording from it by Danielle Licari was a huge hit it France [23]. There's more about in L'Express [24] which says that it was also recorded by Dalida, Maxim Saury, Caravelli, Aimable, and Raymond Lefèvre. It also recently appeared on this album by Andre Rieu. According Billboard, 22 August 1970, the Licari version entered the charts in Japan at #20 and Mexico at #10. He's also listed as one of the artists on CBS France's roster that had achieved "consistent chart success" in Billboard, 14 Jul 1973. I'll update the article with all these refs later today or early tomorrow, unless someone does it first. Voceditenore (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 most recent Keep comment summarizes the strongest arguable points quite well. -- Cirt (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Michael Garland[edit]

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

I don't think Travis Garland passes the notability criteria for muscians, or for people in general. The information here is not encylopedic and it is not written appropriately. Additionally I've made attempts to source the information and clean up the article but I still don't think its salvageable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? He was a guest performer on American Idol for crying out loud. Something that only some celebrities have the privilege to do. His debut if you ask me was on American Idol. And for the article itself, it can be rewritten and cleaned up. 75.62.135.111 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a guest performer itself doesn't mean a whole lot, but fortunately for this heartthrob the media took note: EW, CBS, and Billboard. That should be enough. As for rewriting the article, IP, you didn't have to wait for me. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only big named celebrities perform on AI. Considering Garland was one of the few non-celebrities, it makes him notable enough to stand out from past performers. CloudKade11 (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One performance on a prime-time TV show is not enough for notability. He doesn't have charting singles or a charting album. Much of the information on his page is WP:OR. There isnt even confirmed information when he is making his second release or album release. Was the performance critically appraised? no.... did it cause the song to chart? (i don't think so... i might wrong though). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the article since I went over it? There is no OR there anymore. True, there is no date for an album release, but he's under contract, and that's something. The performance was indeed praised: CBS News called it "show-stopping." Well, New York Daily News blasted his "incredibly weak performance"--you can't win 'em all, but he was covered in a notable source. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. I looked just before I made my comments. Having a record contract does not make you notable. Lots of people have record contracts and are yet to release a single/album. The thing is if this was the AfD for the article of his first single, "Believe" there's no way that the coverage you've mentioned would satisfy the notability criteria for independent song articles. Thus trying to use coverage of one performance of a song released to iTunes (purchase alone doesn't constitute a single release) and didn't chart certainly doesn't make this article notable. Travis Garland as a performer cannot inherit notability from one live performance even though it was on one of America's biggest stages (American Idol) because at the end of the day it hasn't made him notable as an artist. It's done little to raise his profile beyond the performance. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webhat (talk • contribs)
- I shouldn't, but...do you have a reason? Drmies (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (2nd relist rationale: BLP)[reply]

Keep Three reliable sources have produced articles/interviews with him as the main subject and the article content is verifiable. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was trout the relister for not seeing that the nomination was withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Pirate Party[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-corp)) from the article because notability is asserted by the sole reference, http://www.vecer.com/clanek2010110505590554. I cannot read Slovenian so I am uncertain as to whether this article provides nontrivial coverage about the Slovenian Pirate Party. Furthermore, the article states: "The Slovenian Pirate Party has first appeared in the Slovenian media in 2009." A Google News Archive search returns no results, though a search with a Slovenian query might be more fruitful. This political party may fail Wikipedia:Notability.

I will withdraw this nomination if participants can uncover significant coverage in at least two reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well a quick search reveals that RTV Slovenija had a news on it in 2009 about it being founded [25] and so did 24ur [26].--Sporti (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for locating these sources. They should be enough to establish notability. Keep. Cunard (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significantly covered by reliable sources (RTV Slovenija, 24ur, Večer). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noteworthy political party. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caesary[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party sources. A search through the WikiProject Video games guide to sources has turned up nothing. The existing source (MMOHut) has been judged to be specifically unreliable by WPVG. Using the WPVG custom Google search has found only unreliable reviews, blog posts, and press releases, nothing that we can use. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly quick to mark it for deletion, being only a few hours old. Using the WPVG search actually does find the review referenced in the article and all material referenced is merely gameplay information or an actual review and therefore "Critical Reception". If a review by MMOHut is not enough, I shall add information from Gamasutra which is also found by the WPVG.

I also stress that the phrase "Non-notable" is an opinion, as I am sure to many that it is very notable. --Jeirhart (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - keep in mind that most of the Gamasutra links are press releases, which fall under self-published sources, and thus are unreliable. --Teancum (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. As far as I can tell, all of the Gamasutra links about this game are press releases. The others are about the similarly-named Caesar games. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However the article cited in question was a review, not a press release. A review published by a third party with no conflict of interest that judged the game and was used as an example of critical reception and basic game information. --Jeirhart (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the MMOHut review, please be aware that WikiProject Video games has found them to be a specifically unreliable site, which is why we don't include their reviews. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I go about proving this article or website in general is reliable? Is there a list of gaming websites that can be considered reliable?--Jeirhart (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the WikiProject Video games guide to sources is the best place to start. If it's not listed or there's no review, look for things like editorial policies, a list of editors (especially with real names), the quality of writing, things like that are the best sign of a reliable source. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom as it doesn't establish notability. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawton Bond Model[edit]

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

No evidence that this "support tool" passes WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of discussion by neutral, independent reliable sources. The article uses another Wikipedia article as a reference. Probably original research. Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Guarino[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-person)) from the article because notability is asserted by "[Guarino] launched O at Home, Oprah Winfrey's shelter magazine", as well as by other statements in the article. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources, though. This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) and should be deleted if nontrivial coverage in reliable sources about Carly Guarino cannot be found. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling the name produces pages of references which seem to be a dozen or so different people, and most of the listings are social networking or directory listings. It's not clear that the references given all refer to the same person. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Classic[edit]

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

Non-notable smartphone game Orange Mike | Talk 07:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, my article is being deleted because it is not notable. It is a relatively new game, so it is not notable as of yet. Can I suggest we wait for news of the game to spread a bit before you actually conisder deleting it? Det.abu —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

We generally do it the other way around - ie we wait for something to become notable before we have an article on it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable game. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per author who pointed out that it isn't notable yet. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTYET. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - so since the COI author admits it's not notable, just WP:UPANDCOMING, should we treat it as a form of A7, deletion at author request? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However you treat it, just delete it. There is enough consensus that it's not notable, and it can't be notable before it is. There is no hurry for this article. To be notable it needs more than just to exist - it needs third party sources. --Kudpung (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Life in Heavy Metal[edit]

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

Non-notable story collection by minor writer. Orange Mike | Talk 08:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm the one who tagged the article for notability. However, I did identify this brief review in a reliable source. ^Bongo_matic 08:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided need more looking for reviews. Any scholarly ones?Sadads (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lang School[edit]

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

Author claims that school is notable because it is one of only a few that teaches "twice exceptional" students, however there are no sources that support this claim. The article seems to be more about "twice exceptional" students than it is about the school. wacky wace 08:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; verges on an advertisement for their market niche. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in what you call a "niche market" is complex issue. Granted, The Lang School has not been around for long. But its mere existence is of significance to twice exceptionality (which I would not call a "niche market"). The fact that it opened doors will always be of historical importance to raising consciousness about twice exceptionality, an area poorly documented in Wikipedia (something I intend to rectify). I follow with some links as evidence that The Lang School has received attention by the wider community. Kallocain (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://tribecacitizen.com/2010/04/27/nkotb-the-lang-school-and-the-quad-manhattan/

http://www.dnainfo.com/20101019/downtown/new-tribeca-school-serves-gifted-children-with-learning-disabilities

Actually, twice-exceptional education is a movement that started in the early 1970s with 'gifted handicapped' education, essentially the same population. This isn't a niche market. It's a group of children and an education approach backed by 35 years of research and best practices tailored to that group's unique needs. Basically, we are talking about a marriage between special education and gifted education--a strengths-based, differentiated approach that provides special education supports. Over time, what is learned from schools like Bridges, Lang and the half dozen or so part-time programs like it in public schools around the country, are gradually influencing both gifted and special education programs. There was another school that, if a history of twice-exceptional education is to be included over time in Wikipedia, should be included also: Brideun. It was the first such elementary school program in the country (in the Denver area), but it only lasted 5 years. This is a movement with a cast of characters around the country, many of whom are on The Lang School's board precisely because it is a landmark moment and school in the developing history of this movement--here, I speak of Sally Reis (partner of Joseph Renzulli in running U Conn's gifted ed dept and national gifted ed research center), Susan Baum (founder of the movement itself) and Lois Baldwin (founding teacher and director of the country's first twice-exceptional program in Westchester, north of NYC). Collectively, these three have founded the National Association of Gifted CHildren's new Twice-Exceptional Education Task Force. Baldwin and Baum founded and run AEGUS, the national association for twice-exceptional education. Every education conference in the country has sessions on twice-exceptional education and the number/proportion increase with each year. To not include the players of this movement in Wikipedia, including the only two schools in the country that specialize in this group and which are sites for research in this approach, would be to deny the public access to essential historical information.SuzieQ46 (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a niche market; conventional schools do a poor job with doubly exceptional kids, so this school addresses a very real problem, and as an experiment in education, the school is one that is likely to garner a lot of nonlocal attention. The school opened just 2 months ago, so it might be premature to expect a lot of third-party coverage. So far, however, it's been covered in several very local newspapers and some non-local newsletters on education for learning disabilities and giftedness. Unless it fails soon, I expect it will receive more outside attention. If that doesn't happen, then the article can be considered for deletion again, but I expect that in a few months' time there will be more coverage to cite. --Orlady (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does establish its notability with various 3rd party sources outside of it's local area. I'm against the idea that schools are inherently notable, but this is one of the few that genuinely can demonstrate independent coverage. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 03:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes a more than credible claim of notability, backed up by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HME, Incorporated[edit]

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

Non-notable company; could have been speedied, IMHO. Orange Mike | Talk 08:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but is there any reason you removed my perfectly good PROD? Anyway here was my rationale:"Very Promotional, written by a person with a COI, and no third party reliable sources to show notability. (Ordinarily would have tagged as G11 but an admin said that this should not be speedied)" (See this diff by Daniel Case). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found these books within a minute or so and I'm sure anyone taking just a little more time would find plenty more sources here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first of the two books gives a brief few paragraphs out of the entire book. the second gives even less: one paragraph out of the entire book. Not exactly substantial coverage. As for "I'm sure anyone taking just a little more time would find plenty more sources", we cannot keep an article on the grounds that someone thinks there are likely to be sources but hasn't actually found them. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try clicking on "view all" in those Google Books links to see how much coverage there is in the "entire books" rather than on just the particular pages linked. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, thank you Phil Bridger for correcting me. These books do indeed contain more about HME than I realised. They are still fairly brief mentions scattered through the books, and I think they are borderline for establishing notability, but probably just enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Wells Roth[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography by non-notable painter. Orange Mike | Talk 09:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be good to see sources about why the Judge's portraits are so important, because that project appears to be the subject's most notable undertaking. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claim to notability is that he was commissioned by the U.S. federal courts to paint portraits of every judge in Puerto Rico going back over 110 years. Claim is well-documented and there are ample references on his website describing his long career as an artist. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE, based on this article. Again, I'd prefer multiple sources. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Indus[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable third-party sources covering this airline in a sufficient way to pass WP:CORP. The only source is a self-promoting website which is still under construction, for me an indicator that the anticipated launch date for late 2010 won't occur. What is more, the company did not place an order for any Airbus aircraft yet (the claim is that they will operate four of them), so this is just a proposed, possibly failed company without any encyclopedic significance. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anchor Bay Entertainment. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 16:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starmaker (home video distributor)[edit]

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

Doesn't assert notability, also unreferenced. Access Denied – talk to me 10:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anchor Bay Entertainment. Part of that companies history, and the parent article is sourced. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Turlo Lomon. If this is a subsidiary, it makes sense to redirect it to the parent company. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Curling Association[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 70 years of coverage yields only 12 articles in gnews [27] and most of it is not indepth. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be expanded quite a bit, however. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, no explanation how WP:ORG is met. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snake PSA[edit]

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

Contested prod, reason was:

Only source is a link to another Wikipedia article, and that article just a list of episodes of a YouTube show. No evidence of notability.

I agree with this reasoning. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, do not. For starters, The Nostalgia Critic is not a Youtube show. While other users on Youtube upload his episodes, he has his own website, which is the official home of the videos. Second, I posted some links that show mentions of the PSA on TV Tropes-not exactly reliable, but, you never know. Multiverseman (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:PRODer of this article. "Nostalgia Critic" and "TV Tropes" are in now way, shape, or form considered reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking. They are just TV fansites. Most individual television commercials are not notable unto themselves, and there is no evidence that this one is an exception t that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. LOL! I remember this commercial! It used to scare me hehe. I don't think there's enough to warrant it's own separate article, but I do wish there was some kind of "List of PSA's" or something we could add this to.. of a type that would include a bit more encyclopedic prose than just a category listing, I mean.. -- œ ^™ 10:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SkyVector.com[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable website and WP is not an internet quide. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it non-notable? What do you consider a notable website? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability of website is already confirmed on talk page. The website's systems were used on an industry-standard software. The article is also far from being considered a "internet guide" style. The^FSAviator • T 17:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Creator of article)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability the industry-standard software being quoted ARINC Direct is a flight planning website that is not really notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all... ARINC creates software used by just about every airline, that is the reason I originally included "ARINC, the creators of ACARS,". The company is notable enough so that if it uses skyvector software, this makes it notable.The^FSAviator • T 14:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might make it worth mentioning in the ARINC article, but a notable company using someone else's product does not automatically make the supplier notable. In this case the refs do not support that needed level of notability. - Ahunt (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable website. The two non-company refs could be used to support a mention of the software used at ARINC, but it doesn't establish the notability of this website as neither is about this website, but is about ARINC. - Ahunt (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aviation website used by many pilots and aviators. Why there is a sudden deletion rant of aviation articles by Alan Liefting I don't know. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's good work here, and even if notability can't be established, it still worth keeping the content and incorporating it to another article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you suggest it be merged to? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. Can't think of any article it could be merged with ATM. The^FSAviator • T —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure where the good work is or the worth, all the article says is this website has aeronautical maps and ARINC have used them in there website. Hardly worth moving anywhere, hence the deletion discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to warrant its own article. The sentence on ARINC Direct could be moved to the ARINC article though. -fnlayson (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough significant coverage. Agree about merging the ARINC sentence. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Santiago[edit]

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

Contested prod. There is no indication that the subject is notable, based on discussion in reliable sources that are credibly independent of the subject. Also, the article is essentially just a resume. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask to have the deletion of the page ANA SANTIAGO be reconsidered on the following grounds:

A. This person has founded and heads the only Impact Evaluation Network in Latin America and the Caribbean. This network is part of LACEA (http://www.lacea.org/portal/index.php), the most important international association of economists interested in doing research in the region. She is a permanent Honorary Member of LACEA, award given by her contribution to impact evlauation reserach and policy relevance for the region ( http://www.lacea.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&phpMyAdmin=b883a10db6c19d415348047740f5c4b0&phpMyAdmin=f18f79e76e8f09c4b5c658d1db20ad3f).The contribution of founding the network is is widely referred to and attended by policymakers, governments, NGOs, and academics in the field. This contribution falls into the category "creative professionals" of the notability criteria, mostly 2 and 3 with c) of number 4:

"Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals: 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. 2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

B. Further, this person is part of the very small team of persons that have been given the mandate from the Haitian government to redesign a major reform and reconstruction of Haiti's education system following the 2010 earthquake. This has been cited in other pages such as MARCELO CABROL

"Reconstructing Haiti's Education system after the 2010 earthquake: President Preval gave the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB the mandate to work with the Education Ministry and the National Commission preparing a major reform of the Education System in a 5 year plan. New Schools for Haiti (in French) 5year plan to reconstruct"

and PAUL VALLAS "After Haiti's 2010 earthquake, President Preval gave the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB the mandate to work with the Education Ministry and the National Commission preparing a major reform of the Education System in a . [New Schools for Haiti (in French)] [5year plan to reconstruct] 5 year plan]]; Mr. Vallas has been working with the Bank in this effort. For more information: Education Division Chief Marcelo Cabrol"

C. Finally, she leads the all the research and evaluation of one of the main Multilaterals (IDB) on Education topics, directly responsible for ongoing pilots and evaluations for over 200 million dollars. Part of this work has been taking the implementation and designing the impact evaluation of the Teach for America (national teaching corps) model to the region currently in place in Chile, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia. The evaluation design improves on the US evaluations so far, fac that has been recognized and cited in the region and outside (including the US and Europe) by Wendy Kopp, founder of TFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uctpasa (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A person is notable if they are the subject of in-depth coverage in multiple sources that are independent of the subject (see the basic criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (people)). I don't see that in this case: all I see is a resume. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Some external references in multiple sources independent of the subject:"

1. ACADEMIC CITATIONS. Over 1,000 citations of Attanasio, Meghir Santiago (2005, 2009 and 2010) http://ideas.repec.org/e/pat7.html In the top downloads for Economics worldwide for Working Papers for the past 5 years. Top 1 working paper downdload by File Downloads 2010-10 of the IFS and (see REPEP http://logec.repec.org/scripts/seritemstat.pf?h=repec:ifs:ifsewp)

Some current examples of citations:

A) “A Note on Targeted Conditional Cash Transfers…. Ana Santiago (2004)…” www.ipc-undp.org/publications/cct/lac/ConditionalCashTransfersTnT.pdf

B) http://www.inra.fr/internet/Departements/ESR/UR/lea/documents/seminaires/texte0304/SKO04EVA.pdf “ “

C) An Evaluation of the Performance of Regression Discontinuity Design on PROGRESA www-leland.stanford.edu/group/SITE/SITE_2009/...4/.../attanazio.pdf

D) “Neither the Melbourne Institute, IZA, nor IADB is responsible for the views ...... Attanasio, Orazio, Costas Meghir, and Ana Santiago (2001) “Education ...” www.inra.fr/internet/Departements/ESR/UR/lea/.../SKO04EVA.pd

E) Are Mexico’s Conditional Cash Transfers Missing the Target” (2010)by J TUCKER - 2010 “….Orazio P. Attanasio, Costas Meghir, Ana. Santiago and Andrew Shephard, (2008) “Improving the education component of Conditional Cash .. “ policymatters.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/CCTs.pd

E) “I would like to thank ... Yuri Soares and Ana Santiago, all members of OVE who are involved in ex…” www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121649539/abstract

F) “..... Luis Marcano and Pablo Ibarraran and also Allesandro Maffioli, Yuri Soares and Ana Santiago, all ..” www.worldbank.org/ieg/nonie/docs/wp3_you_can_get.pdf

2. Policy Citations Example: Chilean Government http://www.cpeip.cl/website/index2.php?id_portal=1&id_contenido=165

http://www.cpeip.cl/recursos/201002021221550.03.Sistemas_de_Incentivos_en_la_Carrera_Docente.pdf

3. Non-government organizations Example Center for Global Development (CGD)

A. Cash on Delivery, a new approach to Foreign Aid (2009) “….We are grateful for valuable feedback ….on initial drafts of this book from many people, including Jenny Aker, Marcelo Cabrol, Michael Clemens, Homi Kharas, Vijaya Ramachandran, David Roodman, Ana Santiago, and Nicolas van de Walle. We appreciate the openness of the Mexican government in allowing us to publish the results of a workshop at which we assessed the possibility of applying COD Aid to intranational transfers”

B. “ Next steps. In the coming months we will be using the research of our contributors and your feedback to write a "handbook for donors and recipients" outlining how progress-based aid could be implemented. Look out for a draft in late spring. I hope you will take the time to send us your thoughts. Warm wishes, Nancy Birdsall President Center for Global Development” (see link for name in this page as part of the contributors)

http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/codaid/news_highlights/newsletter_spring_2008

http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/COD_Aid/00_COD_Aid-FM.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uctpasa (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is excessively promotional, so G11 applies. If not, notability is, not demonstrated, and a quick Gscholar scan produced an h-index of 10, which is really too borderline given the lack of reliable sourcing pointed out by nominator. Ray^Talk 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little sign that notability is achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice to relisting the "new" article about the TV series, but the original reason for deletion no longer exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players[edit]

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

This article's contents are the property of the NFL Network, a copying of the list constitutes a copyvio.

See here and here for precedent. Quadzilla99 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the reasoning for deleting it.--Yankees10 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. Even if it wasn't for the copy vio, it would be delete based on notability due to subjective opinions that don't mean anything. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So does the same apply to The Sporting News - Football's 100 Greatest Players or The Sporting News list of Baseball's Greatest Players?--Yankees10 20:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Quadzilla99 (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Click on the link [28] in the article and you'll find "© 2010 NFL Enterprises LLC." and a link to "Terms and Conditions" on the bottom of the page that says "1. Copyright Rights... You may use the Services and the contents contained in the Services solely for your own individual non-commercial and informational purposes only. Any other use, including for any commercial purposes, is strictly prohibited without our express prior written consent..." You can't get more WP:COPYVIO than that. I've blanked the list and replaced it with the link. Sorry for the inconvenience, but the NFL Network has a © on there for a reason. Mandsford 22:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Open and shut; list is copyrighted, thus it doesn't belong here unless we get the expressed written consent of the National Football League, which isn't coming anytime soon. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The copyvio was been removed; but its notability is still debatable. Erpert (let's talk about it)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Copyvio has been removed but more discussion is needed on the subject's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a notable series of programs on the NFL Network that received a ton of media coverage. As shown by a search at Google News [29], it received coverage and discussion at all the other major sports outlets. By the way, while reprinting the entire list is a bad idea, there's no reason the top few names couldn't be mentioned in the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyvio aside, there's no reasoning behind including every generated list ever, especially if we can't even show the list due to copyright issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now about the 10-part TV series--which generated a ton of discussion in the sports media, and on that basis appears to me to be notable as a TV series. People who want to find the list can find it easily from the external link provided at the end of the page.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Richardson[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, unreferenced per WP:BLP. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searched Ghits and Gnews using '"Esther Richardson" theatre'. She is mentioned in numerous reviews in her various roles as actor, director and dramaturg. Whilst I would count an individual mention in a review as trivial, I think there's enough combined to clear the notability bar. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This seems to be a sort of CV: she should put that on her own website, rather than using WP as a surrogate. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this article format myself. It's quite normal for actor pages to list all their appearances. There is a case for limiting it to notable appearances (I'm open to arguments either way), but it's a long way from what I'd consider a surrogate CV. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halimzai (politician)[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person. No sources found using a variety of spellings. Unverifiable. Plad2 (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most notable claim is that he was on the Central Committee of the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan which is not actually a government position, but part of a governing board of a political party. However, our article implies the central committee no longer existed by the time the article says Halimzai was on it. The article may be referring to a different Central Committee of which I can find no trace of on google.--Banana (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Djokovic–Nadal rivalry[edit]

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

There's nothing here that warrants a separate article, it's merely a repository for their head to head meetings results. It also fails WP:NOT#STATS. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I couldn't find many sources that discuss this rivalry. Although it's placed third in the ATP's "rivalries of the decade" list and they have a whole page on it, they're not wholly independent, and their analysis is mainly a repeating of scorelines in prose form. No discussion on how the rivalry developed, how their playing styles face against each other, the two personalities etc. It's expected that the ATP will hype things up. No sources discuss the rivalry in any thing like the depth in the Federer-Nadal rivalry. Simple mentions that the two have a rivalry (of which there are a few) isn't enough. Waiting to see if anyone else can find better sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a big tennis fan and I hope we can find sources to restructure the page. Still I think that narrowing the "rivalries" to Nadal and Federer is way more hyphy than including others who also leave their footsteps in the sport's history (and anyone who prevents an all "Federer-Nadal Finals Tour"). All the live commentaries (by obviously professionals) during their matches analyse and compare their style, technique, chances, odds, background...etc (and during a 3 hour match that's a hell of a lot information). The difference (and the disadvantage) is that they didn't do it in a written form. Any chance to include those info (John McEnyroe's or Matts Wilander's live TV coverage should easily do the job)? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote: Djokovic home page offers a streamable and downloadable collection of his matches with commentaries on.Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sidenote 2:Here's a source for the analysis of the US Open match of theirs and another one for their Cincinnati Masters meeting. Based upon these the article could be easily expanded into the same match-by-match style as in Federer–Nadal rivalry. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. While Federer–Nadal rivalry is encyclopedic as their rivalry has been well documented, this article is not. We don't need a "rivalry" article, just because they have played each other quite a bit. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:BLP1E. JPG-GR (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walpin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A clear case of WP:BLP1E - this person would not have an entry had they not been fired. The bio was created by a user now banned (User:Grundle2600), who has serially attempted to edit it in violation of his ban (eg [30]). As noted by that banned user at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin, it was created because the original article on the news event was deleted at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing). Therefore this bio not only breaches BLP1E, but is an attempt to do an endrun around an AFD deletion conclusion. Rd232 ^talk 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the person who first nominated this article for the exact same reason that Rd232 has above, I find that the article, in the state it is in today, does not give WP:UNDUE coverage to the firing, and it appears that notability has been established via other references. I appreciate not wanting to reward banned editors, (both of the editors involved in creating and expanding this article have been banned, those being Grundle and ChildofMidnight), however, in this case, I do not find that fact to be a compelling reason to delete this article in light of the state it is in today, which is pretty unobjectionable if you knew nothing of the history of the article. You would not count me among the friends of either of these banned editors, and they have well earned their ban, but I don't think that cutting off our own nose to spite our face is productive, and that's all this deletion would do. --Jayron32 01:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage of his 3-year tenure as Inspector General is 317 words; the rest of his life (the previous two sections) 172. This is not WP:UNDUE? Anyway, regardless, the article only exists because of One Event, and further more that One Event has been deemed not notable enough for its own article. Finally, I'm all for not cutting off our nose to spite our face, but nor should we refuse to excise a mole from our nose on the grounds that someone might think we were cutting off our nose to spite our face. There's been enough water under the bridge here to be able to step back and re-examine this and see it for what it is: a clear case of BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think things are pretty legit. The chief did hold a significant federal post and the event (which has no article of its own) was rather note-worthy. - Schrandit (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the nomination, the event has no article of its own because it was deleted at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing). So in fact it was not "rather note-worthy". And I don't see many (any?) other people having articles solely for holding a post of this significance - for example this guy only has an article because of the firing. Rd232 ^talk 02:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable individual covered in numerous reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please identify the non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources outside the scope of the One Event. Address the nomination rationale, please, which is WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 11:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't often (if ever) hear me say this, but I'm going to go with Delete per BLP1E. The subject's notability is derived from one single event, his firing. I don't feel that this gentleman has achieved anything remotely like the seperate notability from that event that would warrant an article. The fact that the article on the firing itself was deleted doesn't help this article's cause either. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing and BLP1E. The post in question is not a notable post meriting an automatic WP:BIO qualification. It's a minor federal agency; the current CEO of the agency doesn't even have a bio article, and neither do several of his predecessors. Walpin's successor and predecessor do not have articles. If the article is kept, the current version is a violent violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by failing to fairly detail the lawsuit; Walpin's side of the story; or Senator Grassley's investigation. Amazingly, the words "Kevin Johnson" never appear in the article. The Kevin Johnson article is similarly lacking. I note that bringing this article up to par on the subject of his firing would then cause the article to violate UNDUE, further demonstrating how this article is a BLP1E. In fairness, I note that if someone were willing to spend the money dredging up old New York newspaper articles from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, it would be possible to construct an article that meets the weak standards of WP:BIO. (For example, Walpin's 1999 op-ed criticizing the American Bar Association received national publicity.) I would change my !vote if someone promised to do that, but I see no indication that anyone ever will. THF (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It probably really is time for this article to go. An IG of a rather unremarkable gov't agency who only made the news because of a blip of alleged controversy last year. While not a specific reason to delete, the article is a coatrack magnet for Obama opponents who have tried to fan the "controversy" within the article for political reasons. So that along with what is really a "one event" (the alleged controversy), and we'd really be better off without this article. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor official; minor kerfluffle; WP:BLP1E applies. The marginally out-of-process is an issue too, but there are sufficient reasons for deletion without it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Politics aside, this is a clear cut case of WP:BLP1E. The organization he headed is barely notable as it is, and doesn't chart its other leaders, the way that say, the CIA does. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping with Rilke: Poems & Prayers[edit]

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

No indication why this book is notable, significant, or important. No reliable sources. — Timneu22 · talk 21:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mouldi[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person. Not a member of the current Al-Ittihad squad (links on talk page). Unverifiable. Plad2 (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to current and past squads here and here.--Plad2 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. While it is possilbe he may meet WP:ATHLETE, this claim is unconfirmed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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