< 2 November	4 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Corbet-Singleton[edit]

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

Contested prod. I'm proposing the deletion of articles about an Australian author and his novels because there is no evidence that he is notable enough to have his own encyclopaedia article (no prizes, no significant critical attention, etc). He fails WP:AUTHOR and his books fail WP:NBOOK (no awards, no significant critical attention etc). andy (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All true enough. He's not notable. However, he's verifiable, which means that the guidelines direct us to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before we can recommend that the closing administrator turns this into a redlink. In this case there is a reasonable alternative: Redirect to List of Australian novelists.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but the author objects to downgrading the articles saying things like "Why does Emily Bronte, who wrote a grand total of ONE novel, deserve a page on here more than this author?" and "This is a full-length, legitimate, published novel. It deserves a page in an encyclopedia just as much as any other novel, regardless of its level of publicity". andy (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then let him state his objections here for the AfD closer to evaluate. He's allowed to have his say!—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:NBOOK. That being said, my preemptive answer to the article's creator is that Wikipedia, like every other encyclopedia, has standards for verifiability and inclusion, and he's more than welcome to (a) go to the relevant policies and guidelines on Wikipedia and make his case for why this unknown author is more deserving than, say, Emily Bronte; or (b) plead a similar case to the folks at Britannica. Ravenswing 15:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Brontë has whole books written about her, as can be seen from Emily Brontë#Further reading for starters (and any good book catalogue, which will turn up additional ones, such as the one by Agnes Mary Frances Robinson). This person has, as far as I can find, not been the subject of even one biography anywhere. The one source cited that looks biographical appears to actually be the potted autobiography from the book's blurb. No independent sources exist at all. There are no independent sources telling us that this person is an Australian novelist. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can prove he's an Australian novelist by reference to the National Library of Australia (here). (Okay, at a hair-splitting level, it technically shows that he's a novelist published in Australia.)—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has denied that he's an Australian novelist. It would indeed be a strange thing to lie about. What's denied is that he's a notable novelist (Australian or otherwise). andy (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which is exactly what I said right at the start of this debate. :)—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 7 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francoise Cherry-Cohen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. My reasoning at PROD still applies: 'Just having a job in the television industry isn't enough - what has she actually done that is notable? I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources.' The-Pope (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. What's next, an article about the janitor? Qworty (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: It's bothersome enough that the PROD was removed with but the cryptic "rm PROD after restoration" for explanation, but quite disturbing that an admin did that. In the meantime, the top end G-hits for her is this article, her IMDB article, her Linkedin article, her Facebook articles ... There are zero G-news hits for her, and zero evidence of passing the GNG or any other notability criteria. My bafflement as to the grounds for contesting the prod is total. Ravenswing 15:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. Check the logs and read WP:PROD. It was PRODded, deleted (by myself) after 7 days, then contested at WP:REFUND and thus restored (as it happens, again by myself) in accordance with the policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had occasion to read it over the years, thanks. That being said, it wasn't your good faith I was questioning. Hanging the term "procedural" off of your edit summary just might have been a tipoff that removing a prod tag from the restored article was, in fact, procedural, and provoked fewer questions. Ravenswing 19:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The evidence for notability is not zero. As I note below, she has been nominated twice for an ADG Excellence in Production Design Award twice which is at least arguable for point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A janitor? Sure if he is a notable one. As for the subject of this article, she has been nominated a couple of times for an award but not one any, and coupled with the lack of any coverage, this is not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. No reliable sources to indicate notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:51, 4 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Roycroft[edit]

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

Contested Prod. Doesn't appear to meet the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim to notability. No sources. --Triwbe (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I had tagged it as such, but the author chose to remove that tag. No claims of notability. He has been involved in a couple of non-notable bands. Claims of "collaboration" with notable acts have not been verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Working with notable people doesn't make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:33, 4 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba's College and Grill[edit]

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

This computer bulletin board system is said to have operated for four years in the 1980's, serving up to 600 users. I could find nothing at Google News archive, Google Books (other than one entry derived from this article) or Google Scholar to support notability. It reads like a personal reminiscence. Edison (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<CTRL>-P (or Delete, on an antique system I used back in that time): Given that the creator of the article is User:JohnsonDavis, a SPA with the same name as the putative creator of this BBS, yeah, it's a personal reminiscence. No hits beyond this article and various Wiki mirrors; surprising this went unnoticed for two whole years. It's bemusing, though, that so much of the article involves the herculean efforts to come up with some technological solution to allow for multiple users. One wonders if "get a couple more phone lines" occurred to the bold pioneers. Ravenswing 16:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources and the article is completely unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:28, 4 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancin' Roundtable[edit]

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

This phone modem based bulletin board system operated in Texas for 3 years in the 1980's. The article is interesting, but the subject does not appear to satisfy notability. I could find one author who mentioned it at Google Scholar, nothing at Google News archive or Google Books other than mentions apparently derived from the Wikipedia article. Maybe someone can find reliable sources other than under the article title such as [1]. It reads like a personal reminiscence. Edison (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for fan pages, even of obscure and long-deceased BBS'. Good work in picking up these articles that have moldered far too long, Edison. Ravenswing 16:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the first cited source points back to Wikipedia as the location for primary source material tells us that this is an abuse of Wikipedia to publish primary source material, just because it's a wiki that is open for editing. Wikipedia is not a free WWW hosting service not a publisher of first instance. It's an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Please get your original histories of bulletin board systems published properly, through the usual channels for recording history. A tertiary source encyclopaedia is not the place for documenting the undocumented. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone may want to include mention of this in a more general article about the evolution of chat systems from their beginnings. However, using Wikipedia to advance one's own material or view is not acceptable. And the problem with doing this is that other cites echo Wikipedia articles, and even some printed books use the "free" encyclopedic content here at Wikipedia. This means editors have a responsibility to ensure the articles they write are properly sourced - at least to some degree. As per Uncle G this is not the place for documenting the undocumented (well said Uncle G). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this page does not meet the requirements for existing here, so be it. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken444444 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 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 The result was withdrawn by nominator and rename to Gambling in Maryland. As suggested, an article with that title is more appropriate. Sebwite (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of casinos in Maryland[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Presently, there is only one casino in Maryland. The other ones are yet to have opened. At most, there are only two more that will likely open any time soon. Articles on those two would be appropriate at this point, since they have received a huge amount of media coverage, and one was just approved via a voter referendum. But this is insufficient for a list. Sebwite (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From its racetracks to its lottery to its casinos, there's room for someone to write an encyclopedic article about gambling in Maryland, of which this would be a part. I think the nominator is correct, though, that this is no more than a directory (to Perryville, Maryland), so it would seem. Mandsford 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe there are grounds for there to be multiple articles on gambling in Maryland at this point, just not a limited list like this. There are two more casinos slated to open in the future, and there is enough definitive information about them out there that they would pass the crystal ball criteria. There was recently a referendum called "Question A" in Anne Arundel County that was followed by media around the whole country on whether or not to build a casino at Arundel Mills. Two years ago, the statewide referendum was passed, allowing up to five casinos to be constructed in the state (Yes five is the maximum; according to the state consitution now there cannot be any more without a referendum). It may be possible to write an article about this. The issue of slots in Maryland has been a hot political topic in recent years, so there is probably more beyond that. Sebwite (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a directory of its own contents, so a list of casinos that have articles or merit articles is appropriate and not the kind of directory WP:NOTDIR disdains. I don't know how many casinos are enough for a standalone list of casinos by state, but it's probably best just to point to List of casinos in the United States (which is sortable by state) as capable of handling that information, at least until someone can develop an article on gambling in Maryland generally as suggested above. postdlf (talk) 03:59, 4 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Berdy[edit]

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

Child actor whose only notable role was in a direct-to-video film, The Sandlot 2. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I followed the creator's suggestion and googled, but was unable to find any reliable independent sources confirming this actor's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch. There were indeed reliable independent sources to be found,[2] and they do confirm the facts in the article... but as it is a brief spurt, this minimum coverage pretty much fails WP:GNG... just as his brief acting career fails WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SPAM, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPA, etc., etc., etc. Qworty (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for all the reasons tallied up by Qworty. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The article subject added ((delete)) which I took as a request to delete the article per WP:CSD#G7. However, the editor then recreated the article with the Article Wizard with substantially the same content. I therefore restored all revisions of the article and reverted the closure of this AfD. Speedy delete doesn't get you a free pass from an AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... but no... not quite speedy-able, as article is sourcable and makes no outrageous or libelous claims. And yes, while article about Sean Berdy was written by editor User:Seanberdy,[3] and even if the new editor might not have been aware of Wikipedia's concerns toward COI, the article now belongs to Wikipedia's, and tone "might" have been corrected through regular editing... so let's show a little politeness to a newcomer. Sheesh. The basic problem, simply put, is that this individual's very short career fails WP:ENT. And while yes, the individual does have coverage for his role in Sandlot 2 while also being hearing impaired,[4] this makes this almost a WP:BLP1E. So until he receives coverage for other things and/or his film career grows, this one is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 5 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) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Baptiste[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an unsuccessful candidate for a statewide office that lost by a fairly large margin. Completely fails WP:POLITICIAN. Last AfD closed as no consensus; there is no non-local coverage and no reason for keeping this as a public service. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, lost the election. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one never should have had an article in the first place, but here in the United States, we have people who inevitably decide to use Wikipedia as a free webhost for their personal political campaigns. It's the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November. Goodbye. Mandsford 22:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable former political candidate. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I note the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_objective_definition_of_a_fringe_candidate_for_WP:POLITICIAN. I thought there was a strong consensus that failed candidates for national (or state or povincial) office are not per se notable, absent "more than routine coverage" of their candidcy. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania House of Representatives elections, 2010 per WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ray. (I'd say merge first, but there's nothing to merge.) Flatterworld (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania House of Representatives elections, 2010 per guideline at WP:POLITICIAN. Plausible search term. I agree with the above that there is nothing to merge. Location (talk) 18:59, 5 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 merge to List of Hentai companies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Pineapple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. One relevant ghit on each of Books and Scholar. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two hits on books: here and here. However, there isn't anything that's actually about Pink Pineapple, only things about anime productions they have been involved with. This material is not notable. On the other hand, it is verifiable, which means the guidelines direct us to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before we can recommend that the closing administrator removes this material. In this case, there is a reasonable alternative: we could create a List of Hentai companies and mention Pink Pineapple there. (Individual items on a list do not have to be notable in their own right.) There would be 45 other entries, some others of which might also usefully be turned into redirects.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - There has been some coverage but I do not think it is enough to satisfy the notability requirements. – Allen for IPv6 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of hentai companies or List of hentai anime companies. – Allen for IPv6 14:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per S Marshall. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A company is notable if its works are notable. I see some blue links for some of their releases, they having their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 08:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable" Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Hentai companies per above, all of the titles of Pink Pineapple that are notable can link here as well (Through infobox). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a rather large number of blue links. Surely that is enough for its own list article. Dream Focus 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a bunch of those blue links tagged with notability issues, just because something is notable does not mean the studio is, things stand out in their own way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every single anime and manga article Wikipedia has left is tagged with notability issues. This article is nothing more than a list anyway, so just rename it, and thus problem solved. Dream Focus 20:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of hentai companies or List of hentai anime companies, as per S Marshall's proposal. Deeming a company notable just because they produced a few notable (?) works, would mean allowing articles without enough coverage in reliable sources (besides, we would have to define a threshold of notable works before taking such a decision in an AfD). In my opinion, priority in establishing notability should be given to coverage and sources. Having a list including notable works is a good compromise here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I renamed it List of titles by Pink Pineapple since the entire article is a list, and thus list should be in its name. One sentence mentioning what that company is, and then the other 99.999% of the article a list of its titles. I think it meets all requirements for a list article nicely. Dream Focus 20:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 20:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even for a list, the main topic must demonstrate that it meets the inclusion guidelines. In this case, the company itself must show that it is notable. And even then, a list of all of their release will violate WP:NOTCATALOG. —Farix (t | c) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Some of the things this company produces are notable, therefore a list article showing all of them is perfectly valid. Wikipedia:LIST Dream Focus 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 17:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SMarshall. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 17:37, 11 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) 00:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Sjoblom[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, zero mention of any career with the Finnish EFAF team, possible WP:HOAX, article has already been speedied three times for notability. Top Jim (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it's not a hoax, even if sources are found... these are not noteworthy accomplishments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt because it appears to have been recreated multiple times by more than one user. Morgankevinj(talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Redirect and Protect per S Marshall below Morgankevinj(talk) 03:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep((Hangon)) this is not a stub. ((notability)) exists just new to writing articles in here. Pittosporum (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment everyone be nice to the newbie. Welcome to Wikipedia and be sure to ask questions! If you think you need more than a few hours, may I suggest we move the page to your workspace where you can edit it to your heart's content and won't have to mess with this "deletion stuff" until you think the article is ready?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been speedied three times, only twice (both under A7). The first deletion was a prod. You can see a copy of the most developed deleted version here.
There is a source here (in German), which quotes Marko Sjoblom quite extensively, but it's a press release and so is not independent. If you search, you'll find various other sources, none of which are enough to suggest this BLP meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.
We can't have an article, but deletion is the most stupid way to handle repeatedly-re-created material. It justs leave another redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write an article, and we'd be back at AfD in another year. Salting is an option but there's an alternative to deletion, which the guidelines say we should consider first: Redirect to TxtLoan. Consider protecting the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why Redirect to TxtLoan? I do not see how that would be a constructive solution the problem since it is not at all related to the subject.Morgankevinj(talk) 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's related because Sjoblom is the CEO of TxtLoan.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am somewhat lost but thanks for being understanding, whatever the outcome. Not sure how much you care but this bio profile is quite widely searched on the internet, in particular the UK and elsewhere in Europe and my intention was for wiki to be the first one to acknowledge that. The deleted article from 2008 was reviewed and this one is good. Also, isn't European Champion and MVP high enough achievement for wiki article or is it lack of evidence to support this that drives the AfD, please advice? Finally, here is recent The Guardian article re: TxtLoan: ^[1] Pittosporum (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the GNG. Sorry, Pittosporum, those achievements aren't good enough to meet the criteria given in WP:ATHLETE. Specifically, the criterion for an American football player is: "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." This isn't the case here. Secondly, articles which are about TxtLoan don't serve to support Sjoblom's own notability; notability is not inherited. Finally, what's the basis for your contention that this bio profile is widely searched on the Internet? Ravenswing 16:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to your comment about notability not being inherited--indeed it is not, but that's irrelevant. There's no notability threshold for redirects.—S Marshall T/C 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there isn't, but that's irrelevant. What I was commenting on was Pittosporum's implication that an article about TxtLoan bolsters Sjoblom's notability, for which the precept that notability is not inherited is quite relevant. Since I am neither advocating a redirect nor addressing your advocacy for redirects, the notability threshold or lack thereof for the same wasn't at issue. Ravenswing 19:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. WP:BEFORE does tell us to consider redirecting over deletion, though.—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened text according to Ravenswing recommendation. Hope not to cause this much hassle in the future. Leave rest to you modify. Pittosporum (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may have mistaken my intent. Those tidbits may well be pertinent to the subject's own biography, despite that they do not establish notability as per WP:BIO. In or out, the subject still isn't notable. Ravenswing 13:51, 5 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Ming Chow[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oddly he is lacking Google News hits, yet he is consistently quoted in articles in all major Canadian television/news papers.

CBC News - Staving off flu lowers heart attack risk: study

CBC News - Heart risks vary by ethnicity: Ont. study

CBC News - Artery hardening worse among immigrants: study

Toronto Star - Young musician battles bad genetics

Globe & Mail - Immigrants more likely to suffer heart problems

I would add that when clicking the "Scholar" Google link you posted above, he is found as top author or contributing author on hundreds of papers.Ebrawer (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, none of this helps him meet the criteria in WP:BIO using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? CBC News and the Toronto Star are definitely reliable sources, and they're quoting Chow as an authority. I don't understand the problem.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Being quoted in an article about another topic is hardly secondary support for the individual. ttonyb (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – He is a cardiologist, and he is being quoted as an authority on cardiovascular matters. Ebrawer (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Again, being quoted in an article about another topic is not secondary support for the individual. ttonyb (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Heart attacks are not relevant to cardiology? I'm not sure I follow. Ebrawer (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Ebrawer. I do not even remotely understand the purported grounds for deletion and I can't seem to make any sense at all out of what Ttonyb's saying. Those sources are impeccable. The article's subject is a medical doctor and an assistant professor on cardiology and he's being quoted in very reputable, national news outlets as an authority on heart attacks. Is the objection that the national news outlets haven't interviewed Chow about him personally? I don't accept that Chow has to do a chat show style interview in order to be entitled to a Wikipedia article. Surely his professional and academic standing should suffice.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Very simply put, there is no secondary support for the article. If the article was about "Staving off flu lowers heart attack risk: study" or "Immigrants more likely to suffer heart problems", the references could be used to support the article, but the article is about an individual. Granted, the references quote the individual, but that is the extent of the support. If one reads WP:RS, one will see it states, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." All the references do is support that the individual has been quoted in regards to the subject matter in the articles. I'll ask the question, how does being quoted in a few articles support notability? As far as I can tell, it does not.

If one looks at the criteria, it requires one of two items to be satisfied. 1)The receipt of a well-known and significant award or honor, or 2) That the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. 1)None of the awards are particularly well-known or significant awards or honors. 2) It does not appear that he has accomplished something considered to be a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - an iPhone app is not significant.

If one looks at WP:ACADEMIC he fails to meet that criteria as well. BTW - being interviewed on a chat show only amounts to a primary, not secondary reference source. ttonyb (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Well, based on your reason for deletion "Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance." I take from this that that was the criteria you had in mind to determine his notability. The lack of GNEWS hits is apparently due to Google having poorly indexed various Canadian news sites. Saying he is not notable for not being in the news and then saying that him being in the news is not notable is a contradiction. Furthermore, the (Find sources: "Chi-Ming Chow" – news · books · scholar · free images) bar includes a Google Scholar link which clearly does give significant hits.

We are discussing a Canadian cardiologist, and his awards and recognition are significant in that field. Yet, what do you mean by him lacking significant honours? Well, if one verifies the rather lacking "Canadian Cardiologists" category, it contains 4 or 5 dead Canadian cardiologists, all with the... Order of Canada. This is hardly a standard by which to judge the significance of awards in the context of cardiology. I suppose they were added in an effort to write biographies on recipients of the Order of Canada. Practically speaking, it is not surprising that you do not consider prominent Canadian cardiology awards well-known. A cardiologist would not recognize most neurology awards either, let alone a lay-person. He is recognized around the world in great part due to the software he has written, and has received medical education innovation awards for it. His tools are used around the world. Again, I can understand this not being significant to you, but it is within his field.

As for the matter of secondary sources, we are attempting to establish notability. His being sought-out by the various national media as an authority on cardiology related matters is a source of verification of the claim that he is notable. These articles can serve both the purpose of establishing the individual's notability in the field of cardiology or as sources on the article's primary subject matter. You brought up lack of GNEWS hits an important factor in failing the notability requirement. This was your logic. What kind of news article would meet your standards? "Dr. Chi-Ming Chow is awarded Order of Canada by Her Majesty the Queen"? Ebrawer (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Your comment, "we are attempting to establish notability" is the most telling and is the basis for deletion. If the individual is not notable as defined by Wikipedia in WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC using secondary sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion.

There is no contradiction in my comments about news coverage. The news coverage needed to establish notability is coverage about him, not coverage not about him that quotes him. Quotes from him do not cover him (nor is it secondary coverage about him), they cover an topic he is knowledgeable about.

You have made comments about his being recognized for his vast software contribution, but I see no evidence the support that statement. ttonyb (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You challenged the article on the basis of notability. Given they I believe him to be notable, and that he meet the requirements, I do not see how my attempting to point out why he is notable to you, which is what I mean by "establish his notability", is somehow "telling". Telling of what, that he is not notable? By this circular logic, once you have stated that he is not notable, any attempt to prove that he is constitutes... an admission of non-notability?

Anyways, let's just stick to the requirements. WP:BIO: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars [...] are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

So as an academic, he doesn't need a news story to be about him. Therefore you are plainly wrong to say the following: "The news coverage needed to establish notability is coverage about him". That said, let's move on to WP:ACADEMIC.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Let's see if he meets the test.

Under "notes and examples": Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.

I believe he passes this test - see MelanieN 's comment. The referenced news sources verify this claim. If you believe he fails, please explain why. Simply saying "Appears to fail WP:BIO." or "If one looks at WP:ACADEMIC he fails to meet that criteria as well." does not constitute a proof in itself, it is merely tautology.
Ebrawer (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– It is true that some Academics "...are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." However, this assistant professor is not one that falls into this category. There is no evidence he has been, "influential in the world of ideas" or proof he is an "...academic more notable than the average college instructor/professor". As far your assertion that he meets WP:ACADEMIC because he is a, "person [that] is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area," he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist and therefore this does not apply. ttonyb (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please note that academics and scholars are not held to the requirements of WP:BIO because it is so rare for academics to be written ABOUT; instead they are judged by the impact they have had on their field as per WP:ACADEMIC. I believe Dr. Chow meets those requirements. He has many articles at Google Scholar and they are cited a lot; he is also frequently cited as an expert in the lay press. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Neither is this "...academic more notable than the average college instructor/professor", nor is there evidence his articles are "highly cited" as required by WP:ACADEMIC. Since this is the case, specifically which criteria in WP:ACADEMIC does this article meet?

Keep. He meets WP:ACADEMIC criterion 7, example 14. ("Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.") PK T(alk) 15:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The quote does not include the individual in the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Specifically, he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist. ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tony, I admire the tenacity with which you defend your nomination. But this time you are really stretching. Ebrawer and PKT have quoted chapter and verse showing that the subject clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria as notable, and in response you try to invent a difference between "expert" and "cardiologist". He is being quoted as an expert cardiologist, there is no difference. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – First of all, thanks; however, let's be clear. There is a difference between "academic expert" and "cardiologist". One specifically relates to the academic environment the other specifically to the medical world. You seem to have forgotten to include the word academic in referencing my comments. In addition, the quote is from the definition of WP:ACADEMIC, so I can only assume it relates to defining academic notability and the quote specifically says, "academic expert". Once more, he is not being quoted as an "academic expert" - he is being quoted as a cardiologist and therefore this does not apply. ttonyb (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, you are sticking to your guns, and that is fine. However, decisions here are made by consensus, and I think it's clear what the consensus is at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If things were clear we would not be having this discussion. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MelanieN. Heavily cited author who is frequently quoted as an expert in reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- High number of published papers and citations clearly demonstrates notability beyond that of the average professor. Frequent quotations in the national press also clearly pass the bar of notability for an academic. He is a cardiologist in an academic environment, and is quoted as such. Thus, he is being quoted as an "academic expert" cardiologist, ipso facto. If he were a political scientist being quoted about this or that election nobody would complain that he was being quoted as a political scientist rather than as an academic expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.140 (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per MelanieN. GS cites are 163, 81, 47, 41.... with h index = 13. Together with a few media hits this suffices. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Week keep. I agree with Xxanthippe, although a GS-based h-index is 24 [5] But please clean-up the article of silly puffery. See the talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Silly puffery"? The article seemed fairly factual to me, but I deleted the repetitiousness (education, awards, etc. were all listed twice). --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 6 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 merge to List of Hentai companies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bunny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. No relevant ghits on Books, Scholar Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Not sure that a Porn animation studio is likely to get hits on Google Scholar, no matter how notable it is. That said, they seem to have a relatively substantial collection of notable films. A quick search revealed La Blue Girl. Arisa, A Kite. I think notability would be possible to establish if I spoke Japanese, and knew what reliable sources wrote stories about Anime Porn. Which I don't, so that's why I'm going weak here. -Addionne (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ - Not enough coverage to satisfy WP:N. – Allen for IPv6 17:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of hentai companies or List of hentai anime companies. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Pineapple (2nd nomination)) – Allen for IPv6 14:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per S Marshall. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A studio is notable if some of its works are notable. Dream Focus 07:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reference for that? "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable" Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just one product a company made, but a company with a list of notable products. Dream Focus 12:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is the same. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of hentai companies or List of hentai anime companies, per Allen4names (See also my opinion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Pineapple (2nd nomination), notability should first be established by sources)Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it List of titles by Green Bunny since it is and always has been a list article. There isn't but a sentence about the company, the article just listing its titles. Checked the article from the beginning of its history, it starting off this way even. It meets all requirements for a list article. Dream Focus 20:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 20:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even for a list, the main topic must demonstrate that it meets the inclusion guidelines. In this case, the company itself must show that it is notable. And even then, a list of all of their release will violate WP:NOTCATALOG. —Farix (t | c) 23:18, 10 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) 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Doemain of Our Own[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability asserted, all sources are primary or unreliable. Won a single award whose article was deleted for lack of its own notability — with no other valid assertation besides the non-notable award, I see nothing that meets WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment there are no reliable secondary sources of some kind in the article which indicate notability. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability, no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Could have been speedy deleted as A7 (No indication of importance) and/or G4 (Recreation of a deleted page). Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:09, 10 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) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newshounds[edit]

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

Every single source is primary. The only award won was Ursa Major, which was deleted via AFD twice as a non-notable award. The fact that it's on keenspot doesn't transfer to notability, neither does the synthesis-laden Controversy section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment there are no reliable secondary sources of some kind in the article which indicate notability. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability, no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Poorly sourced to blog "Controversy" section has WP:BLP issues concerning presumably living webcomic artist. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:13, 10 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Popaditch[edit]

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

Failed congressional candidate who lost in a 60-40 landslide. Has never held political office. Fails every criterion under WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I'd call 60-40 a landslide victory. :)

Also, Delete. He definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN, and as far as WP:GNG goes - there is little coverage in WP:RS that is about Popaditch. What I saw was significant coverage of the election, as well as some stories about the debate between he and the incumbent - but very little where Popaditch himself is the subject. -Addionne (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we generally shouldn't have articles on losing election candidates unless they have notability for some other reason. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per all of the above and to be discussed. I note the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_objective_definition_of_a_fringe_candidate_for_WP:POLITICIAN. I thought there was a strong consensus that failed candidates for national (or state or povincial) office are not per se notable, absent "more than routine coverage" of their candidcy. There are also several other AfDs going on about this very topic. Reasonable people can disagree whether a 60-40 victory is a landslide. At 40 %, he's certainly not a fringe candidate. The only possible measure of notability is his Silver Star, a fairly high honor. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 60% is a landslide per the WP article on landslide victory: [6]. Qworty (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as being the Cigar Marine and his Silver Star as said above and latly we have articles about candidates for example, Tramm Hudson and Doug Hoffman. Spongie555 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. His book has been recommended by the Marine Corps Commandant for professional reading [7]. That constitutes significant impact in its field. Quite possible that, as the Cigar Marine, he qualifies under WP:GNG as well. Ray^Talk 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidates are not notable. Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed political candidate: no pass on WP:POLITICIAN. An estimated 150,000 Silver Stars given out: no case for presumptive notability on that alone. A book he co-authored appearing on a 12-page suggested reading list: not remotely close to the "widely cited" criterion of WP:AUTHOR. Being the "Cigar Marine:" classic WP:BLP1E. Zero+zero+zero+zero = zero. Ravenswing 16:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criterion is "significant" or "substantial" work. If you want reviews (as if being on the commandant's reading list doesn't constitute a major recommendation by itself), check out The Midwest Literary Review, Leatherneck magazine, [8], etc. Ray^Talk 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but there is way more than zero here. Take a look at the GNG. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Silver Star, war icon/subject of a famous photograph ("Cigar Marine"), author, and politician all roll up nicely to fit into the GNG. Independantly, they might not be enough to some, but he has plenty of independant coverage for all four aspects. Judging him solely based on one notability guidline is simply unfair and lacks a well-rounded perspective (it would be like nominating Leonardo da Vinci simply because he isn't a published book author). bahamut0013^words _deeds 18:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some pretty heavy expansion and added lots of referencing. I think that should make it clear that he's recieved considerable media attention well before he ever wrote a book or ran for office. I hope that the folks that looked at WP:POLITICIAN and stopped considering there will look again at the bigger picture: there is far more to this individual than his short political career. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was 'Merge and redirect'. I earlier thought: "The information in the article could be summarized and merged into the election article." but because of the book and iconic photo I now think it's worth keeping. Flatterworld (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no election article from this district just to say. Spongie555 (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2010#District 51. Obviously you're not the only one unaware of it, because I just added a link to it from the Nick Popaditch article. That section certainly could be expanded (see any other state election article), but it does exist. Flatterworld (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. With the photo, book and failed candidacy, I think there is just enough to squeak by WP:GNG. Location (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "Cigar Marine" is significant as the subject of an iconic military-related photo, such as the sailor kissing the nurse in the famous V-J day photo in Times Square (V–J_day_in_Times_Square). His recommended-reading memoir, Silver Star, and political candidacy add substantial interest. It should not be merged into the election article, as that is only one of four major concepts of interest. JD Lambert^(T|C) 22:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Quite a few reasons to keep, none perhaps sufficient on its own, but it's clearly not the case that "zero plus zero plus zero = zero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.140 (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Clearly an entire article has been created around Nick, this includes alot of notable information, as a former member of the service, I think the page is appropriate and I see no reason to remove it. Nick is not just an individual, but also a former member of the armed services, I see no reason why this should be deleted. So in shot, Keep Jab843 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- While he certainly no longer fits WP:POLITICIAN I do think he gets by on WP:GNG with a published book as well as the news coverage of the Cigar Marine picture. He also had a significant military service with his Silver Star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvPok (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 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) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gubman[edit]

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

This article fails to assert notability. His body of work is impressive - and Somatone itself is notable, IMO, however this employee of the company does not quite cut it. I found no sources that provide significant coverage of Gubman himself, nor does he seem to meet any of the criteria in WP:COMPOSER - as none of his specific compositions have received coverage, awards, etc. Addionne (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPOSER. Qworty (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find significant coverage that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:38, 4 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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overloved[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NSONGS This article is not likely to grow beyond a stub. The only reason it was created because some fans thought Raven Symone should have released this as a second single. The fact that another "notable" artist covered it does not elevate it to beyond stub status. Fixer23 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 20 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) 00:07, 27 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, NW (Talk) 17:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of songs are stubs, and stubs are perfectly valid. This has been covered by two artists in different styles, so a single article would help research the title. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably placed too much of an emphasis on the fact that it was a stub, but in any case the article fails WP:NSONGS anyway. Fixer23 (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources. Tell me what purpose a PERMANENT stub serves. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:39, 4 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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Writer Under The Influence[edit]

A Writer Under The Influence ([[Special:EditPage/A Writer Under The Influence

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

Non-notable book, self-published by the author, posted here by the author (who also posted a page about himself: Jeff Campagna which is the only page that links to this one. User:Mrs smartygirl (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK, WP:COI, and WP:AUTO. Self-published books in self-published articles by self-published writers do not meet notability standards. Qworty (talk) 19:02, 3 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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bielat[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable individual. Would only be notable in this case had he won the election. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable per WP:POLITICIAN. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguably unique as a Republican who wasn't elected to Congress yesterday. But the election's over the campaign is over, time to take down all the posters and signs including this one. Mandsford 22:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There were about 200 Republicans who lost their races for the House and Senate yesterday. We have a lot of deleting to do. Qworty (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that there can't be a mass nomination of all the self-serving campaign advertisements, but I'm sure many of them will get through by proving that they were state legislators. We had some guy argue in another AfD that a seat on a county board counted as being part of a "provincial legislature". As a Democrat, I'm intrigued by the idea of deleting the the articles of the losing Republican candidates. Mandsford 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Democrat, since we're baring our souls, I can say I would not have been too sorry to see Barney Frank lose, although I also would have liked almost all the other Dems to have won. The election is over, so enough trash talking. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a voter from Massachusetts, I'm perfectly happy for us to tend to the selection of our own representatives and let those from other areas tend to theirs. As an editor peering over this article, like others, I don't see how this particular subject passes WP:POLITICIAN, nor how it had in the first place. Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (e/c) noting I was by far the primary contributor to the article. Oh well. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 02:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The actual article is United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2010#District 4. I didn't notice a link to that article from this Sean article, which generally means (along with no External links other than the campaign site) that it's just a sleazy cut-and-paste campaign article, but I suppose the material could be summarized and included in the election article. (Added Nov. 9: I've now added the link to the article, just for the record.) Flatterworld (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :-( jheiv ^{talk contribs} 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend closing out now under WP:SNOWBALL (too many pages already on my watchlist). Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. The above editors are misquoting the guideline; the guideline explicitly enjoins us to redirect and not to delete. This is so that, if the subject should attain notability later, we don't have to go fishing for an admin to undelete the article history and sourcing. At least, that figured prominently on my mind when I helped write that portion of the guideline. Ray^Talk 06:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, redirect this article to where? Bielat is not particularly notable in any area or field. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious place is United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 2010#District 4. Ray^Talk 13:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge only if there's material pertinent to the election article. Shii (tock) 14:06, 8 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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Pernambuco[edit]

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

Article that largely either duplicates or replace the content at Pernambuco#History. A merge would be in order if any of the information at this page were sourced, but it isn't. Attempts to contact the page's creator to provide sources have proven fruitless. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like this comes from a Portuguese version of the article? Maybe we can redirect to the merge target if author won't chime in.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs to be sourced, but it's appropriate to spin this off from the main article about Pernambuco. This Brazilian state has more people than the U.S. state of Virginia and a history that goes just as far back. Finding sources, whether in Portuguese or English, shouldn't be that difficult. Mandsford 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Pernambuco is a Brazilian state, and as such this seems as obviously worthy a subject as, say, History of Wisconsin. As such, the only thing that could really justify deleting this article is being totally unhelpful, and the current text is not that bad. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic is worthy, to be sure. But there is already a detailed history section at Pernambuco#History, which cites a least some sources. This new article cites no sources, and differs in key details from the older text. If the article is to be kept, then it should probably merge the content from the Pernambuco page, along with that pages references. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took your suggestion and began trying to merge the old article into this one. They're both very detailed; the difficult part is to integrate the two when they're referring to the same thing. Anyone else out there who wants to give it a shot, it's interesting work, though not recommended in large doses. Mandsford 19:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs improvement, its a legitmate spinout article from Pernambuco. Edward321 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The article in its present state is unsatisfactory, as for the period since 1654, there is no more than notes. Some of the content of the the history section of Pernambuco should probably be merged here, leaving a summary and a "main" template, pointing to the History article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am from Pernambuco, Brazil and this article is a great source not just for me but for my friends at our University, who want to learn more about my state. I just love the information provided and I think if they delete it will be a big loss of knowledge!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by IslaSantos (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — IslaSantos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The version under discussion was the work of a single author who has requested deletion. There was another version in history, but it was subject to deletion as a copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P4A[edit]

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

No indication of importance, no third-party sources, was modified from blatant advertising to what it is now: a way to gain attention by saying, "hey look, it's on Wikipedia!" Only link is to the official website. Also, obvious WP:COI as the article says it was created by "Fabrizio Balliano" and the article's author is none other than User:Balliano. — Timneu22 · talk 16:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did not create the page (created by a user), I just modified it cause it was a copy&paste of our wiki and wikipedia said it was not valid... the project is 7 years old, we do not need pubblicity, I added this info just because p4a was added to the framework lists (not by me again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#PHP) but it did not have its own page. If I used my own name because I don't need to hide... anyway there are no links to commercial website and we're not selling anythis... Balliano · talk 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article exists (or appears to exist) merely to state that some product/service/whatever exists, it is often listed under advertising. If you cannot provide third-party sources that explain the importance or significance of the topic, it is likely that an article exists only to gain attention for the product/service/whatever; that's advertising. — Timneu22 · talk 19:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:SPA. Self-promotion is the only reason for the article's existence. Qworty (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 10 references, anyway I don't care about pubblicity so delete that page and keep all the other commercial frameworks that are actual pubblicity, if that's the way you handle things. Balliano (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment If you would like to nominate any of the publicity articles you have in mind for deletion, then that would be very helpful in reducing the backlog. In the meanwhile you may like to look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. As far as the references are concerned, they include a blog post, Sourceforge (a download site which provides the software), several pages which just give a brief acknowledgement that P4A was used in some programming task, and a few appearances on the sort of site that provides brief reviews of almost any kind of freeware or open source software. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Zend Framework page (which is not pubblicity, it's a great product and totally deserves to be on wikipedia) has references pointing to blog posts (2 from the same author) and many subsites of the project itself (forums, contributor guide, press releases from the ZF team itself) and this is the biggest project of all that kind of projects... I don't want to say "hey this page is spam, not mine" because I don't want to accuse anyone while I'm involved in this thread, anyway I want to say that php framework are small projects only for developers so none has a lot of references, maybe none should stay on wikipedia? About sourceforge, it's an independent vendor, and the team has no way to fake the stats so it is a reference, and also it's a reference for the community award (involved more than 100,000 projects) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.70.224.63 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone tried to edit this to get rid of obvious advertising, it's either been put back in, or never really removed:

a web application framework and RAD for producing event-driven stateful web applications....

(Stateful???)

easy to install, portable and modern...

And it attempts to claim minimal significance are lacking: one of the most voted PHP Frameworks in PHPMagazine's PHP Frameworks Trends.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all the motivation given are completely wrong, anyway this is a waste of time, deleted that page, wikipedia has beed highly criticized for its structure and this is another proof of blindness, continue this way, you're doing a great job and PS: check all other pages cause wikipedia it's full of spam and you keep yelling at a floss project which is NOT spamming anything. farewell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balliano (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I can't blank the page... the system keeps restoring it, delete is ASAP so we're all free to waste time on something else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balliano (talk • contribs) 16:20, 4 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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Williams[edit]

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

Was voted "next great pundit". Okay, well that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Seems to fall under NOTYET, and probably WP:BLP1E. — Timneu22 · talk 16:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot that Wikipedia editors have an irrational exuberance for deletion on tenuous grounds. It's been awhile since I've done anything here (and now I remember why). If winning a month-long contest in one of the top two publications in the nation (and thus giving him a regular OpEd column there) is not notable by recent Wiki standards, so be it. It looks like you don't have the previous winner either, Kevin Huffman (ex-husband of the surely notable Michelle Rhee). Bmortimer (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this sound like a notable topic to you? Conor P. Williams (born April 1, 1983) is a PhD candidate at Georgetown University in Political Theory. — Timneu22 · talk 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to get in to a "Philosophy of Wikipedia" debate with you. I think his winning the "next great pundit" competition is notable. It's a big competition. There's press about it. So I put in a stub in. You don't think it's notable and want it deleted. Whatever. Bmortimer (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable newspaper award winner, coverage is from (duh) the newspaper, a university blog, a circular's blog, another blog and the local podunk newspaper. WP:GNG failure. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. He's nothing more than a student who won a newspaper contest. If/when he actually becomes a media figure and "pundit," he'll merit an article. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Some explanation may be helpful here. Winning a contest (as opposed to an award), even a fairly high-profile one, is not necessarily sufficient justification for notability because it's typically a one-time event without a larger significance. That seems to be the case here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: I couldn't say about "exuberance," but something I do believe to be irrational is the ongoing tendency of even some veteran editors to presume Wikipedia's definition of "notability" to be "I think the guy is noteworthy." This, of course, is not the case. Just FYI, Bmortimer, the community has indeed changed its consensus on a few rules here and there over the last five years, something in your absence of several years no one would blame you for not knowing. Ravenswing 18:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I found this page after reading Conor William's op-ed in the Post, wanting to know more about him. To me that qualifies the page for inclusion. 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.76.93 (talk) — 156.33.76.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By winning the competition, he became a pundit already . . . he's writing a bunch of articles for the Post. Seems like people who read him there will want to know who he is. Not really a one-off like most competition winners.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chito Cleofas[edit]

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

As the person proposing deletion said, "No evidence of notability. The only reference is to a promotional page." The prod was challenged by an IP that did not add any additional sources. The sourcing is still very weak, and the claim to notability is neither strong nor well-supported. Accordingly, the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Single source, fails WP:GNG. Tarc (talk)
Delete this completely non-notable wedding photographer per WP:SPAM. Wikipedia isn't the phone book. Qworty (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG, very poorly sourced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:34, 3 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 Mandsford 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Goossenaerts[edit]

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

He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country. Fails WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything of use in google news. Secret ^account 16:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 17:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hes a supercentenarian, and hes been the oldest man in the country for years, and if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country. Longevitydude (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the oldest verified man in a continent is notable, and I know some people who have access to other articles about him.Longevitydude (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it notable to be 100? Why not 97? Why not 103? Even the Lists of centenarians says you need to be notable for something other than being old to be included. This guy is old. So? The youngest person in Europe was born 0.0004 seconds ago. SO?? — Timneu22 · talk 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hes a SUPERcentenarian, hes at least 110, that was a list of centenarians, not 110+ year olds, and being the oldest man in a continent is notable. The article is because hes the oldest man in Europe, not just because of his age. Longevitydude (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did it say, other than being oldEST, this guy is the continent's oldEST verified man. Longevitydude (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So, simply being alive is notable? Certainly that doesn't fit under WP:GNG. — Timneu22 · talk 19:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        He's notable for reaching age 110, alive or not.Ryoung122 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        According to a recent physical, I'm alive. But I'm definitely not notable. So that can't be it. David in DC (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're not 110, either.Ryoung122 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Where is the magic number for notable ages listed? Why not 82? 32? 4? 71? — Timneu22 · talk 18:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The logic for inclusion is faulty. Someday--perhaps very soon--this man will die. He will then no longer be the oldest person within a given geographical area. What will be the justification for the article THEN? The even less notable "He USED to be the oldest person within a given geographical area"? Or "Here lie the bones of a guy who was briefly non-notable for being the oldest person in a geographical area"? He is not sufficiently notable now, and the moment he dies he becomes completely non-notable. Let's not wait till then. Let's delete it now, because we're only going to have to delete it later. True notability is not something that expires with death. Qworty (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary, he will still be notable because he HAD the title, and when you live that long then you can have the nerve to say simply being alive, and yes, its easier to be a professional athlete than a supercentenarian, there are more athletes than male supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Back that up with numbers. What percentage of people are professional athletes? What percent are supercentenarians? The differences, according to our guidelines, is that these athletes get constant significant coverage, where as an old person gets none. I don't care about this person, who is insignificant on just about all accounts. 100 years from now LeBron James will still have some sorts of records that are compared. This guy will not be important at all, just like now. — Timneu22 · talk 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.lanouvellegazette.be/actualite/societe/2009-10-31/doyen-belges-109-descend-encore-escaliers-737237.shtml&ei=9brRTJ2vKIO78gaC8MTPDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEMQ7gEwCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJan%2BGoossenaerts%2B110%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26rlz%3D1R2ADSA_enUS394%26prmd%3Dfd

There were articles about him before he became a supercentenarian, so don't talk about one event hes had coverage for his birthdays way before 110, and the other event is becoming the oldest man in the continent. Longevitydude (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is Being the oldest any less notable then being the tallest, shortest, or heaviest? their all in guinness world records Longevitydude (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness is a reliable source. But it is not a guarantor of notability. Guinness has its standards for notability. We have ours. They are not coterminous. The tallest, shortest or heaviest person ever might be notable for our purposes. The current tallest, shortest or heaviest person in Europe? Not so much. David in DC (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is lost when people die, then Michael Jackson isn't notable either.Ryoung122 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe there's no policy or guideline that decrees that being the oldest man in (or perhaps on) a continent is, per se, notable. I've occasionally believed six impossible things before breakfast, so I could be wrong. If I am, please show me where to look. (Interesting, but probably not dispositive, is the fact that one of the "impossible things" in the White Queen's oration to

Alice is a claim to be a centenarian.)

We edit articles one at a time hereabouts, so I'm not sure that "...if thats your reason for this afd, then youll have to make a lot more, because a lot of people have articles for being the oldest person/man in a country" is particularly relevant. One need not delete speedily if an article about a living person doesn't include unsourced derogatory information, and I don't think anyone's contending that a longevity claim is derogatory, so we've got an eternity to deal with these other pages.

I'm inclined to agree that the quoted language from the centenarian list ought to apply to super-centenarians (and even super-duper-centenarians), as well. But we need not reach that far to resolve this case. All we need do is determine if being the oldest man in Europe, absent any other special, reliable, verifiable characteristics or achievements, is sufficiently notable to warrant an article on en.wikipedia. Per nom, I think not. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: Nomination simply says "He's not notable because he's the oldest person in the country." Europe is not a country. Second, I know we've had lots of AfDs on supercentenarians before, as we have tons of articles on them, so the nomination by itself doesn't tell me why we should delete this one over any other one. E.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Graham (supercentenarian). If not kept, the content needs to be merged into an article such as List of American supercentenarians, as was done in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Nelson (supercentenarian). In this case it would be List of European supercentenarians--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comments redacted; user warned for BLP incivility. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)) The intro said "Belgian Supercentenerian", so that's what the nomination was talking about. I stand by the GNG failure, and I think that there should be a policy or at least some results about old people. If anything, these should be non-linked people on some list page. It's doubtful that these people are actually notable for doing something other than breathing. — Timneu22 · talk 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep You can't even spell "supercentenarian". I think the article should stick, he is the oldest living male in Europe; if all else fails we should at least merge his article into List of Belgian supercentenarians, but I'd rather avoid that. Brendan (talk, contribs) 01:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fucking typo. Get over yourself. The answer here is probably to put this person on one of these list pages, but not as a redirect. — Timneu22 · talk 11:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Belgian supercentenarians. He's gotten written up in newspapers,[9][10][11][12] but all they really say is, other than him being the oldest European man, that he's fairly healthy, and has some children and grandchildren. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this article and any others like it, including the links provided from other AfDs above, should be deleted without a redirect, and the name of the person (and any one- or two-sentence blurb about them) should be on the list page. I think we need a policy for this type of person, who is clearly not otherwise notable. Let the person be searched for in some results, but no reason to keep a redirect to the page. — Timneu22 · talk 11:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not call other people ugly names, and lets not cuss, that just makes your side look weak, attack the arguements, not the person.Longevitydude (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show me where I attacked a user. — Timneu22 · talk 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - well since you said please: you said It's a fucking typo. Get over yourself. (Comments redacted. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)), and shes not even part of the discussion.Longevitydude (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please show me where I attacked a user. I didn't. I commented on a fucking typo. The Sarah Palin link was a joke (since she thinks Africa is a country). Dude, lighten up. — Timneu22 · talk 14:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I need to lighten up, sir im not the one cussing up a storm, and if I remember correctly, obama thinks theres 57 states. Longevitydude (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My comment was related, since I was being accused of calling Europe a country. Your comment about Obama is simply to do what? Anyhow, let's get back on topic. Old people belong on lists, not with individual articles. They aren't notable. — Timneu22 · talk 14:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (Comments redacted. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        Thanks, dude. — Timneu22 · talk 14:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        your welcome, my obama comment was to show that hes no smarter than you make palin out to be Longevitydude (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think this sub-discussion could get any more off topic. I agree that it does make sense to have some guidelines formulated to deal with these AfDs, just like we have tried to do with bilateral relations articles (without success), public school articles (keep all verified high schools, generally redirect middle/elementary schools to district articles), etc. The fact is, when an article is only one sentence, it makes more sense as a matter of organization to include that information in a larger article and create a redirect. Someone who happens to read about this guy may also be interested in other Belgian/European supercentenarians. The number of readers searching only for this person will not be many.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure it could. How 'bout them Giants? David in DC (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because he just recently became a supercentenarian. He isn't like Frederica Sagor Maas, who, now validated, has been recognized by other sources rather than just her nearby/local newspaper. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hes known for something other than being a male supercentenarian, hes the oldest verified man in the continent, how is that not notable.Longevitydude (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We understand your position. You don't need to reply to everyone's "delete" vote. — Timneu22 · talk 17:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What rule did I break this time? Longevitydude (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just listed an article that has more information on him. Longevitydude (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because male supercentenarians are already very rare Petervermaelen 18:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nom's very much in error. The text of the GNG is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Supercentenarians provoke a LOT of articles and news stories about them. Want to bet I can't find at least several articles in reliable sources about him? He's only the fifth living male supercentenarian in the world. Heck, he only has to make it a few more months to crack the top 100 of the oldest verified men in recorded history. That's not notable? Ravenswing 18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ravenswing has a good point about WP:GNG, in his second sentence above. However, I think it's answered in the last bullet of that policy: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.David in DC (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:
- http://www.rtlinfo.be/info/belgique/societe/748989/essen-celebre-l-homme-le-plus-age-d-europe
  - I don't read french. Does this say anything besides the fact that he's currently the oldest man in Europe? As I've said above, I don't believe there's any guidline or policy that says being the current oldest man on a continent confers per se notability. I asked for guidance to find such a guideline or policy. None has been mentioned yet. David in DC (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- just get an account on http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/ and youll find more information on him, and a lot more articles, try it. Longevitydude (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A yahoo group? Why should it matter what it says there? There are lots of yahoogroups. They can be centered on a nearly infinite number of topics that are notable to the self-selected members of that group. And if the members of a such a yahoo group, no matter how eminent they may be in their own minds or the minds of others, can successfully band together to teach the world about their particular interest niche, and accrete whatever it is they find notable into wikipedia, regardless of WP:GNG, we have a much bigger problem than this one article. That bigger problem should be addressed elsewhere. But in the meantime, let's stick with reliable sources and refrain from recruiting people to join a yahoo group and become enlightened. David in DC (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- heres some videos
  - http://video.rtlinfo.be/video/230239.aspx?
  - http://www.nieuwsblad.be/video/videoplayer.aspx?videoid=10217727
- yes he has gotten coverage for years.Longevitydude (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I don't understand the language. Do these say anything more than that this subject is the current oldest man in Europe and that he's got a couple generations of progeny? Without more, my editorial judgment is that this does not meet WP:GNG David in DC (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People this website count as good guidelines?Longevitydude (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heck, no. "[T]his website" is a yahoo group that's morphed itself into a wiki-project, complete with talk page discussions about who the project's leader is and how its purpose is to advance knowledge about old people, (rather than, for instance, to build an encyclopedia). "[T]his website" is a symptom of the bigger problem I mentioned above. Discussions about it belong elsewhere, and, are indeed taking place elsewhere. Let's just stick with the root question raised by this AfD - Is being the current oldest man in Europe, without more, enough to establish notability on en.wikipedia. Not in Guinness. Not in the view of a yahoo group. Not in the view of a band of wikipedia editors who've founded a wiki-project to advance education about their own particularistic niche topic. But, rather, under the clear language of WP:GNG. Editors may differ, in good faith, about the answer to this question. It's a matter of editorial judgment about how WP:GNG applies to this specific subject.David in DC (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep the false attacks to a minimum. The WOP group on Yahoo didn't "morph" into anything. Someone on Wikipedia created the WP:WOP, but the WOP group on Yahoo still exists. One can be a member of the Wiki group without being a member of the Yahoo group, or vice versa.
  - Also, the WOP group on Yahoo was founded in 2002, but we have media coverage of supercentenarians going back decades and even centuries and even millennia. St. Paul of Thebes allegedly lived to 113. Oh, and he's in an encyclopedia, which noted his claimed age.Ryoung122 00:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I assure you thats where the best information will come from, and how dare anyone remove a source I posted that had information about Jan, Idontlikeit is not a reason to delete an article.Longevitydude (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I posted the translated version of an article and someone removed it.So don't complain that you can't speak French.Longevitydude (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please review these edits, and their accompanying edit summaries. [13], [14], [15]. David in DC (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I posted the translated version of the article so those who can't speak French could read it, I did everything I could to cite the sources, but IT STILL HAD A PROBLEM EVERYTIME! And some of those edits werent mine.Longevitydude (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Even when I felt the same way about certain articles that you did you still had problems with my arguements.Longevitydude (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge The article has the potential to meet Wikipedia standards if reliable sources are used - they do exist. As it stands, the article is very poor. I think nominating the article for deletion a mere 20 minutes after its creation has not helped the matter. If the article isn't improved, then I would have to say redirect to List of Belgian supercentenarians until the article meets Wikipedia standards. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the article was never given a chance to be improved, if supercentenarians are not notable, they why do so many people think so, who is anyone to tell us what we should consider notable, all we do is ask others to respect our views on what we consider notable, we don't make afds on what you consider notable, so please don't do it to us. Longevitydude (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, im calm now, but seriously, five refs, I know there have been more in the past that just cant be found, but still, thats a reasonable amount, but learn to have respect for other peoples opinions of notability, you dont see the GRG making afds for stuff that you think is notable that they dont care about, is a little consideration too much to ask? Longevitydude (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge per SimaeseTurtle. It looks like the general notability guideline is met, unless someone can explain how WP:BASIC indicates it does not meet notability. --Bsherr (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG creates a presumption. The final bullet in WP:GNG makes the presumption rebuttable. It gives exactly the reason for rebuting the presumption that this article presents. Please see this earlier comment and review the interplay the last bullet of WP:GNG describes between the presumption and WP:NOT. David in DC (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has reliable sources, and sufficient coverage. Longevitydude (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete or redirect if there ever was one. The assumption of WP:WOP is that having turned 110 and held a regional title, which is conferred basically by Yahoo WOP, which contains a vast membership overlap with WP:WOP, makes one notable. No, it makes one notable for line-item inclusion in lists. Goossenaerts is already in five WP lists, with which a "bio" article (what bio?) would be wholly redundant (there is nothing to merge!). My basic view is that a supercentenarian becomes article-notable (not at age 110 but) when there is enough interest in something other about her or him than just being 110 (otherwise, via WP:BLP1E, they should be redirected to a base list, i.e., list of living supercentenarians). There are many more problems that do not have time or place for discussion now, but some of them appear at WP:FTN#Longevity-cruft, WP:COIN#User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths, and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

The problem is YOU. You have been campaigning against articles on supercentenarians, using smear tactics (you say I don't understand statistics, but you are the one that believes in 950-year-olds), recruiting Grismaldo and Itsmejudith time and again.

How about some FACTS:

1. The WOP does NOT give out titles such as "oldest in Europe." However, that can be referenced to NEWS sources (whether true or not...Wikipedia standards are verifiability, not truth).

2. Notability isn't established by your opinion, it's established by outside sources.

3. "Longevity cruft" is a POV-pejorative. Scientists study longevity, including supercentenarians, and the media covers them.

4. I actually agreed with five of the seven articles you listed for deletion. The List of Oldest Living Men should have been kept (4-3 in favor of keep), as well as "Oldest veterans." That you are pushing to delete generalized lists shows your problems with this run deeper than just whether this man is individually notable or not.Ryoung122 00:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(JJB continues comments hidden by Ryoung122's WP:TALK violation:) While this is not the typical situation of WP:SPAs voting, WP:WOP has been documented as suffering from views contrary to WP basics in very similar (but much more entrenched) ways. Longevitydude and SiameseTurtle are WP:WOP members and Brendanology and Petervermaelen meet the basic criteria of WOP SPAs. I will now notify the two FTN editors and the WP:WOP talk page. JJB 20:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Siamese Turtle is a lot brilliant than you, JJ. It is actually YOUR views, not our views, that are contrary to science. Since you have ZERO chance of succeeding with your religious arguments in the scientific field, you have chosen to bully teens (like LongevityDude, Brendanology, and Nick Ornstein) and push your POV bias on Wikipedia, where "anyone can edit"...including complete idiots.Ryoung122 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(JJB picks up again:) My additional factors: "Oldest verified" excludes a large number of unverified European supercentenarian longevity claims as if GWR verification is the only POV necessary, when in fact many parts of the world simply do not have a way of documenting most of their people to GWR standards. Similarly, the solicitation that we join Yahoo WOP in order to verify hidden webcruft is plainly anti-WP; WP:V requires that any citations to Yahoo WOP can be tagged to "request quotation", and there are a junkyardful of such citations in the topic articles. Further, one reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure. David's later comments about WP:WOP are right on target, and then Longevitydude admits the conflatability WP:WOP and GRG, and the accessibility of WP to GRG, by saying "you dont see the GRG making afds". Thus not only are the arguments a failure, they are carried out by multiple COI edits. The closer had better not wimp out with "NCDK". JJB 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

More false charges and attempted intimidation. Jan Goosenaerts's articles are NOT sourced from the GRG or from the WOP. They come from Belgium.

But more than that, you should stick to your own arguments. Saying that the other people's arguments are a "failure" is POV bias at least.

But more than that, this statement crosses the line of acceptability:

The closer had better not wimp out with "NCDK".

Excuse you, please get off your high horse. You are not "God". Now you are attempting to intimidate the closer's decision about this debate. That's unconscionable.

Do you consider the effect of your actions on others? You are pushing non-scientific POV's on a general encyclopedia that lots of kids read. Wikipedia is NOT a political campaign. Go back to AlterNetDaily. Speaking of "fringe," it's called "alter" net because it supports fringe views, like yours.Ryoung122 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the oldest person in a country does not guarantee notability. This is one of many trivial entries here that relate to human longevity that ought to get the axe. It is pure trivia and the obsession of a group of hobbyists, but there is nothing encyclopedic about it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since it seems like common outcomes of these types of articles is to delete, as indicated by the Oldest People talk page, why would this one be different? I'm not talking about WP:OTHERSTUFF here, I'm talking about common outcomes. We really need a policy for this type of article. — Timneu22 · talk 22:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I fully agree, that's a discussion for another, as yet created, page. Here, we're just called upon to decide if Jan Goossenaerts is notable. Once we're done (or contemporaneously if someone is so moved,) someone can propose an addition to WP:OUTCOMES. This page is about one tree. The forest can and should be considered by a larger part of the community, in a more visible way than a single AfD about the oldest man on (or perhaps in) Europe. David in DC (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possessing a superlative trait (eg oldest man, tallest human, etc.) is not a concept of notability of itself because that is just a happenstance for that person at the time and place of interest and who else living or dead has been there. This is not to say that this trait cannot lead to other notable facets, which Walter Breuning (mostly) demostrates - his age led him to become notable, but that was, in part, due to living in America as opposed to other areas of the world where media coverage is zero to nil (eg the middle of rural China) but also from having done some somewhat notable aspects during his life. Jan G. here doesn't seem to have any of that reported in secondary sources, so this is just a happenstance. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply being very old does not make one notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E both certainly apply here. Reso lute 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's old. We got it. We also dont give a fuck. Not notable per everyone. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he has significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and so meets the WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because there is no "event". Thparkth (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple reliable sources"? Are you looking at the same entry as everyone else?Griswaldo (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article I'm looking at links to coverage in several sources, among them Voice of Russia, RTL, and Sud Presse. Thparkth (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thparkth. First off, awesome user name dude. I didn't figure it out unti I tried to type it out. Then all wath revealed. On to business, please review JJB's earlier explanation of why four of the 5 sources are all mirrirs of one another. In pertinent part, he says: "[O]ne reason these newspapers are so convenient so quickly, yet without translation, is that WP:WOP and GRG are very often primary sources for such articles and know of their placement ahead of time: note "according to gerontologists" in first article and the very name GRG in the next three, each of which refer to "80 supercentenarians" (verified, living); compare list of living supercentenarians, what a coincidence that WP editors and "gerontologists" agree so closely, maybe they are the same people? So the first four articles are all really the same article, only the fifth seems to have some independent material, and the reliance on videos above further demonstrates the GNG failure."David in DC (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the key point is that four different reliable sources have taken the editorial decision to run this story - and that creates a presumption of notability for me. (The fifth source, somewhat confusingly, appears to be a political party.) Thparkth (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what someone said earlier, nothing makes a side look weak like attacking the person instead of the arguement, or cussing, something to think about. Longevitydude (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable because it is covered in detail in numerous reliable sources and so passes WP:GNG. The opinions above that extreme age is not notable are expressing a personal opinion rather than following the guideline and so violating core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, as I've said, reasonable editors can differ about whether the presumption set up by the first several bullets of WP:GNG control or whether the final bullet of WP:GNG, setting up the terms for rebutting the presumption, controls. But we're talking about the same guideline. Neither view violates WP:NPOV. David in DC (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you wish to determine this matter based upon your own POV as to whether extreme age is notable. This is unacceptable as you are not a reliable source - you are just a random passerby with no special standing. The point of the guideline is to determine such matters by reference to independent third parties rather than taking a poll of whoever shows up at AFD. Your position violates multiple policies including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the RS argument here. These sources are virtually mirrors of one another, which another editor has pointed out above. Also, trivia is published in newspapers in various forms and at various times to make the readers feel all warm and cozy inside but that's not what an encyclopedia does. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and certainly not the society section of one. I don't see your position as any less of an opinion than that of David. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectable newspapers are commonly used as sources on Wikipedia and are quite satisfactory for establishing notability because their professional status and reputation indicate the independent and reliable nature of the interest in the topic. In this case, they include Gazet van Antwerpen and De Standaard which seem quite adequate for our purposes. The opinions of individual editors here are quite worthless by comparison and there is not the slightest policy basis for accepting them instead. AFD is not a vote and editors are expected to bring evidence to the discussion, not their personal opinions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good ah point Colonel. I am going to think about re-evaluating my opinion now. I see the loggic in this, Thank you, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge.

I see several problems/issues with the "deletionist" arguments.

1. Notability is established by outside sources, not your personal opinion (Carolyn).

2. Some have said that persons cannot be notable for "old age" alone.

Yet if we run a Google search on news for "Eugenie Blanchard" we get more than 600 main articles in English, as well as other languages. So, that's a false argument.

Instead, the argument should be: "at what point does someone become notable for age"?

3. "Notability is not temporary." This is a poor argument. That is used for incidental, one-cycle news reports. But someone who is the "oldest man" in their nation, they have the title every day. And when they die, they are recorded as the titleholder. That's not temporary.

Do we say that, since George Kell won a batting title decades ago, he was notable in 1949 but not now? Also, we have every major league baseball player ever listed as "notable," coverage or not.Ryoung122 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- Notability is measured entirely by the sources. Enough reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject in detail enable an article to be written. Now, this guy probably comes in at the low end of the coverage but it's OK in my opinion. That said, three of the sources are nearly identical copies of each other. Reyk _YO! 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Timneu22, your comments have been extremely inappropriate, including calling your misspelling of "supercentenarian" a "fucking typo". And let's not forget your denying attacking users. Your comments are detrimental to both your image and this discussion. Please stop. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't commented on this for a long time, and I never attacked a user. You seem to care about my image far more than I do. It was a fucking typo. What's the damn big deal? And on further inspection, it's been two days since I commented on this thing, and no comment was "inappropriate". Unbelievable that you'd single my comments out. Two days ago! Sheesh. Irrelevant. — Timneu22 · talk 04:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any personal attacks either. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy scrapes the criteria, but scrape it still is. Brendan (talk, contribs) 03:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those that argue that this passes the GNG need to show that significant coverage in secondary sources has been met. There is coverage, and there are sources, but that coverage is not significant (I would expect a bio and what contributions he has made to society, for example), and the sources are not secondary (they are third-party, sufficient for WP:V, but give no insight, analysis, or synthesis that one would expect from secondary sources; the articles simply say "he's old, he lives here". --MASEM (t) 14:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues[edit]

Keep. As per people Peter Vermaelen and Robert Douglas Young. 62.235.160.79 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — 62.235.160.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep.for respect for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.227.30.79 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC) — 94.227.30.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: The above two are evidence of WP:CANVASSING. A previous serious charge of canvassing from a private list in a similar (merge) discussion occurs here. (I have also been accused of canvassing via a statement above, but the difference is that I informed everyone I was doing it and I notified two editors on one side and one workgroup on the other side.) JJB 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I have no idea who those anonymous edits are from. That said, canvassing ON-WIKI is a violation of Wiki rules and within Wiki-jurisdiction. Posting material on a third-party site is not...it's outside Wikipedia. But in any case, that was a post regarding Longevity myths, not Jan Goossenaerts.76.17.118.157 (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to assume 76.17 is Ryoung122 due to style without trying to remember which IPs he uses regularly, and I will accordingly accept this as an admission of the former canvass on the merge discussion and an attempted denial of canvassing in this discussion; so I am striking my charge. JJB 12:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Someone can be notable simply for being very old, in which case there will be plenty of coverage in the media. In this case there is only a small amount of coverage. If in time there is more coverage then the article can be re-created. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As usual, we find that JJBulten asked you to come here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsmejudith#Nomination_of_Jan_Goossenaerts_for_deletion. More canvassing.76.17.118.157 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Already answered above. JJB 12:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. WP:GNG should control, not sentiment or WP:CRUFTCRUFT. I respect arguments that the existing cited coverage is not significant, but I disagree with them; the cites provide enough material to source a passable article from, which seems to me the most natural standard to use. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the article is quite short, but I can see great potential for it to be improved. It is, in any case, a tad too long for a merged section as it has more information than any of the other living Belgian supercentenarians. Brendan (talk, contribs) 07:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another summary: Deletion/merge arguments:
- WP:BASIC, as all articles but one arise from one insubstantial GRG-quoting nonindependent wire copy.
- WP:IINFO: citing what people eat for breakfast is generally an indicator of nonnotability.
- Trivial intersection (compare): [oldest] [living] [verified] [male] [in-continent]. Previous merge consensus.
- Significant WP:BIAS against several living Europeans who claim to be 110 but happen to lack three proximate documents.
- Notability misstated, as we are told repeatedly "oldest" (which is disputed by above unverifieds) instead of "oldest verified".
- No consistent WP:OUTCOMES formed by workgroup yet (line-item notability, thus merge, would be consistent).
- Merge/redir is better consensus, allowed by Brendanology, Bsherr, Clarityfiend, Ryoung122, SiameseTurtle, and deleters.
- Rebuttable presumption: "still doesn't seem notable given the sources" is valid consensus.
- WP:CRYSTAL, as several argue that he will definitely become more notable. Call us when so.
- WP:V, as we've been directed to inaccessible Yahoo WOP as a source.
- WP:NOTNEWS speaks for itself.
- WP:COI, WP:WALLEDGARDEN, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:SPA.
Retention arguments:
- WP:IHN; but if unsourced it would be an automatic delete, so it fails that.
- WP:GNG; but of 5 links in article, 3 are identical, 1 is mirror, 1 is questionable.
- Not one event; but coverage prior to 110 is only local Belgian, i.e., not continentally notable.
- WP:RS exist; but it is the WP:BURDEN of the claimants to insert.
- Such an astonishing variety of trivial illogic as to be left as an exercise for the reader. JJB 14:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Y'know, there's enough valid consensus in favor of a delete that you really didn't have to construct such a violently slanted "summary", and in my eyes doing so damages your position. I'm particularly unimpressed by the grasping at straws in dismissing sources that are merely "local Belgian". There's some consensus that "local news" sources generate lesser weight toward notability, but that consensus is in regard to e.g. community newspapers of Pothole, Idaho, not Belgium. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge no inherent notability in age.--TM 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the editors who want to delete this article are bias and assume bad faith, and I suspect meat, not sock, puppetry with JJB and a few of the others who want this article gone. Longevitydude (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny that you would accuse me of being a meatpuppet when I have been on Wikipedia approximately 3.5 years longer than you. Grow up and stop insulting others and accusing them of bad faith because this article was nominated for deletion.--TM 04:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, at least im grown up enough not to be using foul language, and the reasons for deletion don't sound like good faith, and neither does making an afd for a less than 20 minute old article. Longevitydude (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a very funny accusation seeing as the bulk of keep voters probably belong to the same gerontology yahoo group that seems to coordinate wikipedia editing. The irony is blinding.Griswaldo (talk)
  - All we ask is that you please respect our views on what is notable and that you don't inflict your differences on us, we dont nominate articles you are interested in just because they don't mean anything to us, please return the favor. Longevitydude (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This leaves me virtually speechless. I wish I could quote box it and place it at the top of the AfD because the rationale is so against policy and the basic concept of what an encyclopedia it that it literally takes you breath. We're not here to trade favors in order to retain non-notable trivia. If I created or contributed to such work myself I would expect you to have it deleted. Unbelievable.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whats unbelievable is that you don't let people have their own interests, you thin kthat just because your not interested that no one should be allowed to be interested in it, notability is in the eye of the beholder, don't tell the beholer that he can't have his own interests and definition of notability. Longevitydude (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the reason Wikipedia in general does not adopt a "whatever one individual feels is notable is notable" standard is that this is effectively the same as having no standard of notability at all. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        People should be allowed to be interested in whatever they want, let them decide notability for themselves and let other people have their own interests, wikipedia will have more viewers if their are more articles, deleting them makes wikipedia less famous, people want information and why will they waste their time at a place that doesnt have the information they are searching for. Longevitydude (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, this is the radical inclusionist position regarding Wikipedia content. It is not accepted by the community at large, which contrariwise holds that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I am afraid that you are not going to be able to change this project-wide consensus within this deletion discussion. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that the article seems to be well written now and it has sufficient coverage, and some of JJB's reasons as far as policys might be missinterpreted. Longevitydude (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that every section is unsourced. Oh, and "work hard and eat 2 slices of bread with pear syrup every morning" seems far more like a trivia book than encyclopedia. — Timneu22 · talk 15:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is wrong with an encyclopedia including trivia in its articles, articles are supposed to be as informative as possible, it just makes it more interesting. Longevitydude (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And whats wrong with knowing someones secret to longevity, its about his longevity and what he accomplished with it.Longevitydude (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:TRIVIA. And others. — Timneu22 · talk 15:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.gva.be/antwerpen/essen/op-tijd-gaan-slapen-en-veel-poepgelei-eten.aspx&ei=ehnYTKnkOIH_8AbTpOj1BQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDgQ7gEwBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djan%2Bgoossenaerts%2B108%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26prmd%3Dfd. a translated article from his 108th birthday Longevitydude (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) What this guideline is not There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests: This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format. This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies Longevitydude (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC) And what others. Longevitydude (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:HTRIVIA, WP:ROC for starters. — Timneu22 · talk 16:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Timneu22 and Griswaldo have nailed this. Dude, why don't you comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Notability so that other editors know what "our views on what is notable" are? Since your edit summary mentioned "foul play", I think it relevant to repeat that Itsmejudith, Griswaldo, and David in DC all arrived at this topic set due to a posting by Dougweller at WP:FTN, which they watch, and have nothing to do with me other than the public collaboration inherent in my mediation with IMJ. I think they are also interested in counteracting the longtime COI issues the other editors allude to. Why don't you work on those please, such as:
- Having Yahoo WOP coordinators pledge how to handle their COI
- Floating proposals for fixing the repeatedly found extant COI edits
- Finding all citations to Yahoo WOP and replacing with accessible reliable sources
- Removing all allegations and implications that living people are lying about their ages
- Making public at WP:WOP which editors are also on Yahoo WOP and which do what within e-group GRG
Sorry for the off-topic, but you're only aligning the editors further against you. JJB 15:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Your new source and your misstatement of the trivia-section guideline when the whole article is trivia do not add anything new to my summary above. JJB 15:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- If your gonna split hairs, everything is trivia about something else, and my link was to show that he had coverage over two years ago, this is nothing new. Longevitydude (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I have to agree with Masem here. Most of the sources are the same identical press release. There is only one secondary source out there which has maybe a paragraph of information. In my view, it doesn't meet our minimal notability standard. –MuZemike 15:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the list of what wikipedia is not, leave out that its not considered a reliable souce, perhaps because anyone can edit and remove information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longevitydude (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://essen.cdenv.be/Nieuwsbericht.4954.0.html%3F%26no_cache%3D1%26tx_ttnews%255BpS%255D%3D1191189600%26tx_ttnews%255BpL%255D%3D2681999%26tx_ttnews%255Barc%255D%3D1%26tx_ttnews%255Btt_news%255D%3D8804%26tx_ttnews%255BbackPid%255D%3D3648&ei=CSPYTKW7Koyr8Aa1qdSdDQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD4Q7gEwCA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Djan%2Bgoossenaerts%2B107%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive a translated article of his 107th birthday, with information about him.Longevitydude (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm disappointed to report that this edit history contains 5 "new section" edits that do, IMHO, meet the definition of WP:CANVASSING as being simultaneously excessive, biased, partisan, and secret. Sorry 'dude. JJB 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did not !vote in my comments above, so now I shall. There's no consensus to delete this article. Its a messy waste of time at this point. We need a better framework for handling these articles, but we won't reach it by deletion here, in my opinion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly a waste of time. The "keep" voters have not commented on the lack of sources (three sources identical), and most of these voters come from the same external or internal groups, and they're trying to commandeer the discussion. Read the reasons for deletion, not just the votes. — Timneu22 · talk 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sir, there are 5 articles in the article, and I have found other articles from birthdays before his 110th, It seems like sufficient coverage, if he wasn't notable according to anyone then how did he get that much coverage? Longevitydude (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you serious? We've already discussed this. Mirror sites. WP:N. — Timneu22 · talk 19:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To be fair, those are not mirrors, but the question is whether somebody who's never had extra-Belgian coverage before last week is now suddenly notable. Even if he were a local mayor he'd need more coverage. What he is instead, putting it bluntly, is a guy at the rest home who, unlike several other Europeans who claim to be older (already linked), happened to get the right three documents to the GRG, members of which are also dictating both the extra-Belgian coverage and the WP article. JJB 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved guidance sought We're going in circles in a venue far from the light our co-editors might be able to shed.David in DC (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
one editor said,There's some consensus that "local news" sources generate lesser weight toward notability, but that consensus is in regard to e.g. community newspapers of Pothole, Idaho, not Belgium.Longevitydude (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Reyk, Colonel Warden, Ravenswing, et al. Newspapers around the world have taken notice of this man, that's what notability is. But even besides that, we're supposed to be the sum of the world's knowledge. Who the oldest man in Europe is is a rather important bit of knowledge. --GRuban (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If only we knew! I've been assuming he's the oldest [verified living] man in Europe, but he's not even that! He is not listed as verified on the GRG's primary or pending list! Since they apparently track these folks from age 108 and yet there has been no 3-document verification made, he is no different from any of the other "oldest men in Europe". I repeat that WP currently says Józef Kowalski had a 110th birthday in Poland last February, a precisely similarly positioned but "older" guy, and there are several others. Sorry this blindingly obvious verification failure came so late (I will edit the article accordingly), but this definitively indicates a result of pointing the name to list of Belgian supercentenarians. I was coming over here to say that anyway, because it appears to be an already-accepted consensus solution (of the type that this discussion hoped to achieve), at List of supercentenarians from the United States#People, where the short bios are already merged in; but I trust the additional epic fail makes the result clear. Yes, I'm advocating, I do that when my convictions are categorical. JJB 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  It indicates that if one is thinking of the whole thing in terms of "this guy is notable for being the oldest guy in X geographic region". But I don't know why one would do that. The interesting question to me is whether the available third-party coverage on him is independent, reliable and significant. Use the GNG, yo. The GNG: It's Pretty Good!™ —chaos5023 (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to GNG, the third-party coverage of the 110th is not independent of the GRG, of which some of the keep !voters are members, and it's not significant. The sources are all taking his word for it without verification, so they're not independent or secondary in relation to him either. As to reliable, it would be more reliable if someone had reported reviewing the birth certificate (the GRG is only "tracking" him, not "verifying" him). And as to specific notability guidelines, where the workgroup has been negligent by not creating any, there is a general consensus shown by the U.S. article above that 110s with this degree of coverage belong in the list articles. But in short, your position comes down to saying that anybody who claims to be old enough to get newspaper reporters out there deserves a separate article, which is not much different from the radical inclusionism you deny above, nor from the WP:IINFO position. Even if I went further than you do, and took the position that all coverage of Jan was encyclopedic, it would still be better managed on a workgroup level (and thus an improvement) to merge and redirect, rather than to maintain a separate article that remains a stub at this date (along with all the other stubs). And that's before the walled-garden issues, plus the recently discovered issue that Longevitydude has claimed he was verified without providing any proof of that fact in all his sourcing. JJB 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to Lists of centenarians As commented above, those 5 sources are mirrors of each other, and 4 of them are local newspapers. Fails WP:BASIC. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; just being the oldest person in a country isn't notable enough, and I note the paucity of non-mirrored sources. I'm not seeing how it even meets WP:BASIC, and kicking the heat to light ratio towards the former isn't helping the "keep" cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion note: I have now analyzed the many late 2007 longevity AFDs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Deletion recommendations, which I believe is the natural next discussion for editors to join as to the larger questions; naturally my analysis supports my delete-or-redirect position. JJB 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep 110 years old is notable. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how? What you've given is not an argument. — Timneu22 · talk 10:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - yes it is. 110 years is a 'supercentenarian' and a very unusual boundary to reach. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, that's not a valid argument. Use WP:RS, not opinion. — Timneu22 · talk 12:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you meant to link to WP:BIO, which says 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.'. This is unusal enough to be recorded, end of. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the lists. He's only known for one thing, and the coverage is minimal. Quantpole (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note 15 keep votes, 14 delete votes (including 'merge'), and 3 keep/merge votes. Obviously all the (insert your opinion here) votes are backed by invalid reasoning, so that means the decision should be to (insert your opinon here). Sumbuddi (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the statistics read I guess an editor removed some of the votes, but thank you for the information.
- Delete: 26 48.15
- Keep: 25 46.3
- Redirect: 3 5.56
- Longevitydude (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The collapsed, duplicated summary would be messing with the AFD statistics, so I removed it.Sumbuddi (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the lists per WP:BASIC. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Votecount a bit more accurately since Sumbuddi and Longevitydude have broken the suspense:
- Delete without merge (11): Secret, Qworty, David in DC, NickOrnstein, Griswaldo, Masem, Resolute, Carolyn Baker III (thinking), Itsmejudith, MuZemike (weak), The Blade of the Northern Lights
- Delete OR merge (4): Timneu22 (in later comment), John J. Bulten, Namiba (TM), Enric Naval
- Merge (3): Clarityfiend, Quantpole, Jeff G.
- Keep OR merge (7): Brendanology (in earlier comment), SiameseTurtle, Bsherr, Ryoung122, 62.235.160.79 (SPA per Ryoung122), Milowent (in earlier comment), GRuban (per others)
- Keep without merge (9): Longevitydude, Petervermaelen, Ravenswing, Thparkth, Colonel Warden, Reyk (weak), 94.227.30.79 (SPA), Chaos5023, Sumbuddi
Total 34. By these basic and casuistic counts you have 15 delete, 14 merge, 16 keep, so there is clearly no consensus. By another method of counting you could take the first four as potentially preferring merge over keep (25), or the last four as potentially preferring merge over delete (23), but that is a standard middle-of-the-road argument and does not have extra probative value; you could just as well argue that cold deleters exceed cold keepers, although that too can be tweaked. If you take only the 3 "weak" or "thinking" as includible in merge, you get 17 and so it still might be the best consensus-achieving position. Strategically, if we close as NCDK it might get merged anyway, and if we close as merge/redirect it might get recreated anyway, and the discussion would resume. So the real question is, where to resume it and what will it say, and I propose we continue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Deletion recommendations. JJB 18:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I should add that I think NCDK (no consensus default keep) would be an abrogation of the closer's duties and a punt. Much better to make a firm choice based on strength of argument, not addressed by votecount, or to relist so that the project talkpage can decide this based on reaching a basic outcome consensus. JJB 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe "delete + merge > keep", so you go with merge. There is a clear consensus that the data doesn't belong in its own article. — Timneu22 · talk 18:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, its a mess, and i think no consensus = no consensus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure the deleters would consent to the info being added to a list page; the problem was with this article containing info. — Timneu22 · talk 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VOTE Nutshell of Guideline: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus. Polling is only meant to facilitate discussion, and should be used with care."

While not exactly evil, !voting presents significant problems. If I were an admin, which thankfully I'm not, I'd conclude the broadest consensus is that this isn't a WP:BIO, but that a redirect to a list is less objectionable to more editors than an outright delete. If I were king, which we all should be thankful I'm not, I'd take a blowtorch to a whole lot of stubs that strike me as hobbyist trivia and well within the dictates of WP:NOT.

If I were an admin, I'd also take note of the larger problem of the conflation of the GRG, WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People, the GWR, the GRG yahoo group - and the myriads of WP:CRUFT GRG has accreted into WP. Then I'd punt that whole issue to a colleague or colleagues whose judgment and equanimity I trusted and who wouldn't kill me for asking them to step into this viper's nest next.

Longevitydude's passion for knowledge is evident. As is his zeal for generic fairness and due respect for "allies" he admires. But his arguments above present prime facie evidence that the Wikipedia World's Oldest People WikiProject and its acolytes are explicitly out to do something other than build an encyclopedia. Taken together with the talk of leaders, and access to special yahoo group documents, and most of the rest of the carp on the WOP project pages (especially its talk page), there's a forest out there that needs serious pruning, of which this trivial stub is merely a symptom.

But we edit these articles one at a time. A close here need only address this tree. The larger forest can be discussed at an RfC, on a Noticeboard, or, as has been happening because the appropriate WikiProject has utterly failed to create a "common outcomes" protocol, one arbor at a time.

Enric Naval and The Blade of Northern Lights have both shed more light than heat above (metaphor stolen directly from BNL). If you take what they say about WP:BASIC and what I've said above about the interplay between the rebuttable presumption erected by the first several bullets of WP:GNG and the very example of an appropriate rebuttal to the presumption found WP:GNG's final bullet, the closing note for a delete or a redirect to a list is practically pre-written.David in DC (talk) 21:07, 10 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 Speedy Keep Since the article has been completely rewritten, and I appear to be the last person (including the original nominator) to revisit the AfD, it seems appropriate to close it instead of simply striking my original merge !vote. Jclemens (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Loopner (moved to The Nerds)[edit]

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

Nominating this mainly due to no references. Also, it is written as if this was a real person, and not a character in a skit. Probably needs to be merged into a relevant SNL article. The Eskimo (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Not sure why this is at AfD--if you're just looking for help for a merge destination, the talk page may be more help. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your suggestion. To clarify, I usually AFD in these type of cases mainly because of no references. Lack of attribution has been a touchy subject on Jimbo's page, and others, of late. Also, it is my experience that pop-culture related articles (like SNL) have so many forks, and the discussion boards are so full of POV from people who honestly don't understand the policies, that AFD generally gets the job done in a more expedient fashion, and avoids pointless edit wars. Had the article been of a more academic subject, I probably would have just done a merge, and left a message on the talk page as you suggested. That said, still, I prefer deletion of articles written with no refs. These kind of subjects (pop culture) are not my cup of tea, and I am not going to go browsing around for refs just because the original editor failed to do it correctly the first time. The Eskimo (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recurring sketch wasn't exactly a monologue by Gilda Radner. In books about SNL, it's usually referred to as "The Nerds", and there is some real world notability for the sketch. The show was sued by the person whose name Bill Murray borrowed and based his character on, and there were people who were upset by skits like the "Nerds Nativity" and Dan Aykroyd's refrigerator repairman. It would work as an article about the sketch. The biography is classic 2005 Wikipedia, a leftover from its sillier days. Mandsford 22:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Lacks references to WP:verify notability which is grounds for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Refactoring comment. Substantial rewrite with new topic. Not sure what to make of it since I was commenting on Lisa Loopner. I'll keep my comment neutral since I don't know how to handle an AFD like this. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mandsford is right. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after its post-nomination improvements and the move to The Nerds with grateful kudos to User:Uncle G. While yes, the original article on Lisa Loopner was unreferenced,[16] and would deserve a redirect at best, the article as it now stands bears little resemblance to what was first nominated. Uncle G's superb rewrite and sourcing now show the notability for this iconic SNL sketch that Wikipedia requires. Good job that he recognized the potential and acted on WP:ATD. Perhaps the nominator might consider a withdrawal now that his original concerns have been so neatly addressed? Succinctly, his nomination was about a different article entirely... and this one is not it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great job by the G-man in turning this article from an OR character-bio into one about a very notable series of sketches from the early days of SNL. Mandsford 14:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator I applaude the initiative of Uncle G for rewriting the article. All my original concerns have been addressed. I am glad to see it remain as a good article and not in a merge. Closing as keep would be fine with me. The Eskimo (talk) 18:46, 7 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) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Award[edit]

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

Topic is non-notable and article is a likely BLP violation. The only references provided are either primary or can't be used to establish notability (Snopes). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The whole enterprise of the Stella Awards is of a dubious nature, but it is frequently covered in the press, even when it is covered as being a hoax or not a hoax or whatever it is.[17]. E.g., [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] - the newspapers reports are endless. Any references to individuals by name that raise BLP concerns can be removed.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what is the BLP problem here? Did you mean the namesake of the award? Kuru (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a whole article on her case, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, so any sourcing concerns can be met by drawing on that.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have passed six years ago[27], so the only concern would be with other living persons associated with that case. Since none of them appear to be named, I'm not sure I see the BLP angle. Kuru (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware she was deceased. I guess the BLP issue is a really a non-issue then. However, a Google News search for "Stella Awards" (both singular and plural) brought up zero hits for me, which is why I brought this to AfD. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. THF (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Basket of Puppies 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you both elaborate more on the reasoning? CTJF83 chat 11:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vast improvement needed, however. bd2412 T 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Sources provided by Milowent establish notability. TJRC (talk) 22:49, 8 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) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn Ottman[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. I don't see that she meets the biography notability guidelines (specifically the creative professionals section) let alone the general notability guidelines -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep While the article feels as if its been polished with a slimy PR brush, it appears that the subject does have some recognition in independent sources, including NPR, Treehugger and a number of green groups. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep!! Please don't delete this! I can add more sources easily, she is a totally "notable" person in her field!!! She is a leader in the field of Green Marketing. I also don't want a "slimy PR" brush on it. How can I remove that. Please tell me how I can make this okay with wikipedia. HELP!!! User:Green31569{Green31569 (talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete An search for sources on Google or Google books finds immediate matches, however on a more detailed examination these invariably turn out to be mentions in books that are intended to list most players in this market or matches with text directly reproducing press releases by Ottman's company. Ottman appears to be a highly effective self-publicist, this results in plenty of tangential mentions or sound-bite quotes in "reliable sources" but these are weak evidence of the significant impact on the historic record that notability requires. My opinion for delete is weak however, as sources are still being added to the article and I would be happy to change to a keep if some substantial sources (not agency sites, PR re-writes or info-mercials) are recovered. Fæ (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After a detailed review of the 11 footnoted citations (see the current article talk page), I find marketing promotional material, industry conference listings, tangential mentions (as a marketing expert) which do not discuss Ottman's notability and one independent interview which establishes her as an expert in her field but does not address impact on the historic record or make any claim to her wider notability. As a result of this detailed review I have now upgraded my opinion to delete as with the search for sources done so far only resulting in tangential or poor quality citations, I see little prospect of unambiguously addressing the notability criteria in the near future. Unfortunately as often happens with self-publicists, notability may be superficially claimed but fails to hold water when only supported by a flood of press release re-hashes and tangential mentions. Fæ (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:BIO lists as a secondary criteria subject is "not irrelevant" It seems you are applying the standard of fame while overlooking the fact this subject is not irrelevant within the field of green marketing. My76 Strat 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep!!~~ Please !!!I have added many new sources. Please change your weak delete User:Green31569{Green31569 (talk)} —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - one !vote each. :) -Addionne (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - oops, sorry. clearly i'm new to all of this...talk)} {Green31569 (talk)}

Keep - and expand. A google new archive search turned up some good sources. a New York times new article on this person for example. There are sources out there. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that seems an odd source to pick out. It says that she was getting married and is a "marketing consultant", neither are grounds for notability. Fæ (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subjects notability seems clear to me IAW WP:GNG. The article is in poor condition considering it's 2 year history, and does little to enunciate the notability which is contained within the sources. This is an unfortunate byproduct of single purpose accounts which Green31569 seems to identify. Nevertheless I have added this article to my own watchlist and intend to contribute improvements as time permits. I did include some sources to the article which speak to the subjects notability and am comfortable suggesting we keep this article. My76 Strat 23:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability checks out but it was an odd article so I've made a start on 'wikification' - there are some better refs so it is rescuable Thruxton (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for her name and "green marketing" and found ample results. [28] Look through the edit summaries and the publications name. Dream Focus 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not actually add some of those cites to the article to demonstrate notability? WikiuserNI (talk) 19:57, 8 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) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Halpern[edit]

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

This researcher has a h-index of 11 [29]. I don't know if he qualifies for a biography according to WP:ACADEMIC. It's true that the biography of another researcher with the same h-index, William Connolley has been "SNOW kept" at AfD. I guess we're going to find out if that's a good standard or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Assistant professor a bit too early, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. H-index of 11 in a high citation field is not really enough. William Connolley has other reasons for notability. Ray^Talk 15:02, 4 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) 14:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TestOut Corporation[edit]

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

Speedy declined as admin felt company may be notable. Google search returns no reliable sources, likewise no coverage of this corporation via Google News. Fails WP:ORG and more generally WP:GNG. Furthermore, article is mostly sourced to self-published sources (see criterion 5 of linked subsection) and comes across like spam or an advertisement for the company. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find "significant coverage in secondary sources" about the company or its products. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This business develops IT certification training courses called LabSim. Article is entirely advertising, containing a "mission statement" ("To make a difference in a person's life through education using breakthrough technology."), an entirely unreferenced but self-congratulatory company history (The company began incorporating videos, written lessons, and practice exam questions in each training series. Then UEC began integrating simulation technology into its computer-based training to give users hands-on experience.), and the rest and bulk of the article is a listing of the products it offers. And, as noted, it's just not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 3 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) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tawnee Stone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found nothing on a search. Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the 'other version' (check article history) is nothing but personal information about an adult model gleaned from other crowdsourced websites; in other words, not reliable. --Golbez (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are unchanged from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawnee Stone and the situation is unchanged. There are no good biographical sources in existence. A biography cannot be written here. Ironically, this recently re-created article stated outright what I said back then: we know the pseudonym, purported age, and job; and two out of the three are falsehoods. It also said that this was a trademark. Delete first and I have no objection to a redirect to Lightspeed Media Corporation once the bad biographical content is gone, just like the other completely unknown and falsely named Tori Stone and Jordan Capri do. Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete failure of WP:GNG and the lesser WP:PORNBIO. Looking at the old AfDs is completely Facepalm inducing; I am so glad that the project's standards have evolved since then. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 12:49, 4 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) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suiku[edit]

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

Unreferenced quasi-nonsense article; probably either hoax or duplicate of hokku. No response from creating editor. Nothing relevant found on Google Web or Google Books, or Japanese Wikipedia candyworm (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —candyworm (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I conducted a similar search as candyworm and I was unable to find any verifiable evidence to support this article or back up the term's definition. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:19, 3 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 Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy. Consensus is clear that this is a WP:BLP1E and a redirect to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy makes sense and gets strong support here. Davewild (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Diaz[edit]

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

Blatant case of WP:BLP1E. This is not a biography; it's an article about a political controversy involving defeated California governor candidate Meg Whitman. I'm not convinced there's any long-term notability here; if not outright deleted, this should be cut down and merged into Meg Whitman or California gubernatorial election, 2010. Robofish (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 hours after the polls close the job of burying the bodies begins. If this was worthy of post in wiki in the first place then it should stay around until we discover her reward or lack of one for being part of the political campaign and the conclusion of her lawsuit. To do less would imply that this information was run only for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.179.80 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was for only political purposes IMO. Arzel (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy. The story is thoroughly covered there, and Ms. Diaz is not notable for anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not even worth a search term, complete 1Event, political hackery situation. This is about as clear of a WP:BLP1E as one sees; another otherwise non-notable person who has no desire for the public spotlight. Tarc (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the article indicates she became the face of undocumented workers in America, her story generated protest marches throughout the Largest state in the US. Her case likely was the downfall of Meg Whitman who spent over $119 million of her fortune to become governor. Not only is there much more than one event there is still the hearing in December. There are tons of news stories including LA Weekly, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, Sacramento Bee, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Associated Press, Huffington Post, CNN, PBS Newshour, Contra Costa Times, and San Francisco Chronicle among many others. And the Meg Whitman article already has a very brief overview of a complicated story, Diaz is not a footnote of Whitman but a victim of hers, Diaz deserves a neutral telling of the facts not a watered down spin cycle. Munijym (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - WP:BLP1E This person has done absolutly nothing of note. If this is the criteria for article acceptance then anyone that has ever published anything, or ever been in the news for anything should have an article. Arzel (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"After all the tens of millions of dollars that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has spent to build her brand as a corporate CEO ready to take on California's myriad crises, the story told by an undocumented maid from the East Bay may prove to be her undoing. Nicandra Diaz Santillan, of Union City, who for nine years cleaned Whitman's toilets and washed her family's laundry, has almost single-handedly rewritten the narrative of the governor's race in a way that Democratic candidate Jerry Brown couldn't have dreamed up." Carboload (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're really understanding the gist of WP:BLP1E. How many sources talk about her or how important you (and I'll note that you and Munijym have edited pretty much exclusively in this topic area) think the subject is; if they are only known for one event and are otherwise unimportant, then that generally fails our notability criteria. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those of you who are insisting that this is not even worth a search term, completely non-notable, etc. - I assume you are not from California. This was a big story here, and her name is likely to remain a search term for quite a while. I don't think she is notable enough to have an article (those who do think so seem to be offering political arguments rather than encyclopedic ones), but I do think her name should be retained as a redirect, as I suggested above. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect from California, agree with Melanie. DocOfSoc (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From BLP1E - "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So, California, the largest US state with an economy bigger than most nations, is having a gubernatorial election in one of the most divisive mid-term cycles. The campaign of Whitman, who would be the first female governor of the state and is noted for spending more millions on her own candidacy than any other person in history has her tightly scripted campaign upended by ... Nicky Diaz. Over a series of events and press conferences The critical Latino vote - that Whitman spent an unprecedented amount to get - melts away as Nicky Diaz's story is repeated to Latino and independent voters. These facts are recounted in numerous political assessments before and after the election is over. The controversy is way too large for the Whitman article and is only summarized there, the story is quite large for any other article really and the story is as yet unfinished as the court date was moved to November 17th. Of the post-election news reports I've seen each has mentioned this story as the turning point or pivotal event shaping Whitman's popularity among Latino voters and thus the election. Certainly not one event and well deserving of an article on it's own. I think a "housekeeper controversy" article would be worse and would lose the context of a person who became teh face of undocumented workers.
Here is a sampling of recent news reports. I'm sure the Latino press will also cover this story in great length and detail and the entire episode will be a lesson in immigration politics especially in the 2012 elections.:

Nov 1

California's Central Valley Finds Itself on the Political Map, PBS Newshour

Nov 3

Whitman, Fiorina lose: What’s Silicon Valley got to do with it?, Good Morning Silicon Valley
Why Rich Candidates Failed, Wall Street Journal
Obama says US voters 'frustrated', BBC
Wealthy Candidates Reap Poor Returns in U.S. Vote, Bloomberg News
The most expensive 700,000 votes ever in politics, Ventura County Star
How Meg Whitman spent a fortune -- and lost, CNN
How should Harry Reid say gracias? Con mucho humildad., The Washington Post
The GOP's big night, The Week
Latinos mostraron poder electoral sin fuerza política, BBC Mundo

Nov 4

eBay billionaire Meg Whitman's cash bid fails to win over California, The Australian
In the red, The Economist
GOP women lost despite cash and business savvy, The Washington Post
Republicans ponder big loss in California, San Francisco Chronicle
Latino Voters Influence Felt Beyond Brown and Boxer in California, Claim Advocates, Orange County Weekly
Rich Executives Bomb at the Ballot Box: Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and others didn't realize that money isn't everything, Bloomberg Businessweek
Analysis: Voters say ‘no' to CEOs, The Union of Grass Valley
Why I'm inspired by the midterm election, Salon.com

Nov 5

California bucks red trend with blue pick, Sydney Morning Herald
Legal fray still suits Gloria Allred just fine, Los Angeles Times
Latinos Reached Milestones in Midterm Races, New York Times

Nov 6

Tuesday's election continues Democratic trend for San Gabriel Valley, Whittier areas, San Gabriel Valley News

Nov 7

Why Meg Whitman failed, San Jose Mercury News
Mike Murphy: Meg Whitman's Medicine Was Too Tough, LA Weekly
How Meg Whitman could have won, CNET News

Nov 8

Why Whitman's $142 million didn't buy the governorship, Contra Costa Times
Why Meg Whitman lost; war is hell; "don't ask, don't tell", Los Angeles Times

Nov 9

Walters: Murphy has lots of excuses for Whitman's loss, Scripps News Service
Latinos' mixed message for Democrats; The Guardian News (UK)

I think this demonstrates this is not a one event nor is it a story going away. There are some interesting contrasts between the millionaire politician brought down by the undocumented worker she turned her back on and the Latino voting block that both parties will have to cater to more. Munijym (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these links show that this person is the epitome of 1E. She did not and does not seek the spotlight herself, she is a woman whose name was unfortunately dragged into the spotlight becase someone more famous tha her did something wrong. Compare this to the Gordon Brown incident where he referred to a woman as a bigot on a live mic by mistake. we has huge, raging discussions about whether she should have an article or not; thankfully common sense prevailed, and her name is just a redirect to the incident. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy per WP:BLP1E. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As others above had said. This is one event so it should be redirected to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant BLP1E - the only thing this person is notable for is being involved in a political controversy. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy. BLP1E and ONEVENT suggest we shouldn't have an article here, but it's a plausible enough search term. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E I think has been addressed and the same worldwide notable coverage would also cover WP:ONEVENT, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." The question remains to cover this as "housekeeper controversy" or more accurately as about Nicky. Also for "one event" it is going into it's second month of coverage. It seems analogous to saying Monica Lewinsky and the Lewinsky affair were just one event and it all should be merged into Bill Clinton. I think it's much too soon to state that and many news outlets are citing Nicky's case, the statewide protests and usage of the story as swaying the key Latino votes away from Whitman. Munijym (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies and guidelines are not firmly written in stone, and the 1E bit quite clearly explains that there are exceptions if the event itself is of significant, critical importance. A guy who shoots a president and a blowjob that nearly brought down a presidency| certainly pass that test. A political scandal for a candidate who did not even win the election? Not so much. It's worth a footnote, at best, in the main article. As for persistence of coverage, it is largely over. There are a few articles in the last few days analyzing why Whitman lost, pinning this incident as one of the reasons, but that is all. It certainly is far, far out of the Page 1 headlines. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very significant event but I wonder how much should be placed in the article as context. To go on the blowjob that nearly brought down a presidency example this is the fired undocumented maid that brought down the billionaire candidate: How a $23 per hour Mexican maid voided the impact of Meg Whitman’s $140,000,000 ad blitz.. Before this story erupted the two candidates were in a very tight race and Whitman had spent, I believe, more to get Latino voters than any other candidate. California is the largest state in the US and it's economy dwarfs that of most countries (I think it's the 9th largest in the world). If she won the then-close election she would not only have made a case for money well spent but also be the first female governor of the state, making her one of the more influential women in the nation/world. It would also set her up as the vice-presidential candidate for 2012 presidential election and would have been a strong tipping point in the 2012 election putting the state very much into play. California has almost always been an influential state in many respects of politics and business. This is a huge story that is reported on worldwide and it is not a single event but an ongoing story. [Meg_Whitman#Housekeeper_controversy]] is a very small and hand-picked/cleansed version favoring Whitman's side, that's expected. To include the relevant content of this very new article in that section would be eliminating most of the context and impact. I'm sorry but really if there are protest marches around the state in your honor there's a good chance it is not a fleeting story. The woman has become the face of undocumented workers and she is a hero to many Latinos. I've added some more sources but I also wanted others to see if there is more in the Spanish-language press. Munijym (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no question that the content that caused the creation of this article, the housekeeper controversy, is notable. Its no different than Steven Slater ending up at JetBlue flight attendant incident. Here, I am fine with redirecting/mering to Meg_Whitman#Housekeeper_controversy unless it is shown that this controversy merits it own article. These articles are often created under the name of the person instead of the notable incident.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meg Whitman#Housekeeper controversy per WP:BLP1E. This individual is notable for one thing, namely the Meg Whitman Housekeeper Controversy. No one is saying that Nicky Diaz shouldn't be discussed at all on Wikipedia, we're just saying that she doesn't pass the requirements to have an article dedicated to her. SnottyWong ^babble 17:19, 10 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) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Horizon Afrique[edit]

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

There are no independent sources to be found that offer significant coverage on this airline, which is required to pass WP:CORP. Non of the fleet directories have any aircraft listed for this airline, so it either operates only very small aircraft, or it did never operate any flights at all, which would indicate that the airline is of no encyclopedic relevance. Actually, I can't even verify that the company still exists. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable organisation with no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usually I would vote to keep any airline that does fly on a regular basis, however the article does not provide any substantial sources to verfiy this and Google doesn't turn up anything either. At the moment there is no way to verify whether this airline ever did fly, whether is still does, how many aircraft it has etc. 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Traffic[edit]

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another online business promoting search engine manipulation, making preposterous, unreferenced claims of globetrotting multinationality even if this sort of thing is mostly done from behind a desk whose location is irrelevant: multinational organisation that designs, develops and implements Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) strategies for a wide range of online businesses across the globe. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no indication of notability. At this point, article is just advertising. The Interior (Talk) 22:43, 4 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) 14:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Spiegel[edit]

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

Subject of the article has posted to WP:BLPN requesting deletion due to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues. No actual opinion expressed about AFD by nominator, procedural nom. -- Cirt (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - as per subjects comments at BLPN and the low notability of the last twenty four years of his life spent as a defense attorney, . Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to respect wishes of subject. The article has just been stubified pending the result of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 15:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by a long shot, and even if he were marginally notable he's requested deletion. Fences&Windows 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. No notability aside from long-ago participation, which is arguably a single event. Ray^Talk 03:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't quite WP:BLP1E, and if the subject had the same biography in the 2000s instead of the 1960s, there would be no question that his readily accessible media coverage would result in a keep consensus. But I'm a deletionist, so Merge/redirect to Weatherman (organization). THF (talk) 19:03, 4 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) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Massacre[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Sole claim to notability is for producing two tracks for a game that won an award, but neither of the two references given names him, and one of them credits another producer by name. Nothing online about the two being the same person, and the only reference cited linking the two is the subject's own Facebook page. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other producer Luke Geoghegan produced the track with John Murray Hill/Johnny Massacre.

You can see on John Murray Hill's facebook the link to Twin Vulcan which is his record label ... because he *is* Johnny Massacre: http://www.facebook.com/tokyoneon

Also, proof that Johnny Massacre is Don John "The Bastard" is on Johnny Massacre's MySpace blog. There is an old post from 2006 where he refers to himself as Don John "The Bastard" here: http://www.myspace.com/thelastrealdjalive/blog --- Read the first ever entry at the bottom. It says, referring to himself in the third person, "Don John "The Bastard"... quite simply... went to bed."

Don John "The Bastard" even has a very old MySpace ... look at the picture ... it is Johnny Massacre: http://www.myspace.com/40788866 ... There is even a very old website made for Don John The Bastard by a student: http://volatilecycle.com/2222website/ Look at the pictures of Don John "The Bastard" it is the same as Johnny Massacre.

The conclusive proof comes again from this website: http://volatilecycle.com/2222website/ Listen to the song that plays when you enter the website, titled 'Chelsea Girlz' by Don John "The Bastard". It is the SAME song that Johnny Massacre says he is about to release as a new single in 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8oYEfSjn4k JohnnyMassacre (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - BLP of alleged person, with no reliable sources and obvious promotional intentions. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 4 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. I'm not seeinga clear consensus either way here. There is a tension between N and POLITICIAN that has yet to be clearly resolved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murray (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As indicated in the AfD that just closed a few hours ago after Murray lost the election, he is a non-notable army officer, who did not come even close to being elected to Congress. Racepacket (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I closed the previous AfD, with the consensus present there. I agree with Racepacket that this should now be deleted, as Murray does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. However, I would not be averse to this being deleted and recreated as a redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:MILPEOPLE, but I could see him possibly being a valid search term. There is a decent possibility he might try for office again, so keeping the edit history in a redirect might be a good idea later on down the road. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redir - Local, routine coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Should have just been tossed the first time around, along with many others. Tarc (talk)
Procedural Close Abuse of process. As indicated by the nom, the last AfD only closed a few hours before this one opened. I don't believe that any policies have changed significantly in that time. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (See below for rationale for alternate outcome)[reply]
Bold redirect - plausible search term and to keep history in the unlikely chance he eventually runs again and wins. The article creation and subsequent original AfD were premature, as the outcome of the AfD depends on the outcome of the election. I see no reason to procedurally close this one, but perhaps in the future temporarily close AfDs of political candidates until election results are known.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - Article just had a deletion discussion that closed concluding that the article should be kept. I highly doubt the grace period between AfD nominations is several hours. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not feel that a procedural close is the correct thing to do here. The original AfD had been (along with some other political AfDs) timed to end on election day. There would have been an argument for the procedural close of those as an abuse of the AfD process, but the consensus on the last AfD was that it should be kept until the results of the election were known - I should have been clearer about that in my closure, sorry. When I closed the last AfD, I did not have the results before me (I did not in fact think that they had been released at that time), so I closed it as a keep. Now that the results are known, I feel that this is a perfectly valid renomination: otherwise I would not have added my recommendation above. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POLITICIAN is not the guideline to be followed, this candidate still meets the GNG requirements as he has had plenty of coverage:

Fairfax Times has an article w/ significant coverage on Murray.
WTOP TV has an article dedicated to Murray's military career.
The Dailykos on Murray
WMAL radio on Murray
The American spectator
American Chronicle's in depth coverage
Business Wire coverage
Alexandria Times has in depth coverage

A number of papers from accross the country found the endorsement of Murray by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee (CCAGW PAC) notable enough to cover, those include but are not limited to: MSNBC,Rueters,Forbes, Denver Post,SF Chronicle Furthermore, let's look at whether or not people are seeking this article out? In June it had 205 hits, 252 in July, 497 in August, 898 in September, 2916 in October... (I did a random search and all but 1 of the 10 articles I looked at were hit in 2-300 range.) Obviously, people see him as notable enough to seek him out here.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources relate to his political campaign. His military career was not notable outside his politican campaign. Racepacket (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG is independent of WP:POLITICIAN; it is not superseded by it. If his military career received significant coverage even within the campaign, then he passes WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Whether that coverage was trivial and incidental to the news reporting during an election year is what we should be considering here. Ray^Talk 15:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the question is, Is the coverage trivial in nature, "Murray went on a campaign stop" that's trivial in nature. Or is it, "Here are the issues Murray is campaigning on", "here is the bio of the candidate", does the person get significant coverage? We can't pick and choose what constitutes GNG based upon an interpretation of POLITICIAN. GNG supercedes POLITICIAN, not the other way around.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Balloonman in this particular case, but we clearly need better guidelines following a thorough discussion. At most, this should be a merge and redirect, not under any circumstances a delete. Flatterworld (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is non-notable per MILHIST guidelines WP:MILMOS/N as well as the other guidelines cited above. The only coverage appears to be recent election related coverage (which he lost) and as such this would seem to indicate only passing interest per WP:NOTNEWS. Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may be a little biased, as I am the creator of the article, but Patrick Murray is unlikely to be gone completely from Northern Virginia politics, and he has received national attention, including an interview on Fox News and several other articles and interviews with national news affiliates. So I think a keep would be best here. ~BLM (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close – Article just had a AfD which resulted in keep; it should not be AfD'd again so soon after that. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up a couple of times now and even the bloke who closed the last AfD has now voted to delete... can you please provide the reference for this policy? Anotherclown (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody besides the nominator had recommmended deletion, it would qualify for a speedy keep under WP:SK Section 2.3. Following the spirit of that guideline says that renominating an article within hours of its last AfD closure without any new information, policy change, or significantly different delete arguments is disruptive. If the decision was that he was notable before the election, and notability is not temporary, then there is no policy based cause to delete now. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about policy, but a "keep" decision is just that, a decision by the community to keep the article. It's not "we can't agree on what to do;" that would be "no consensus." Therefore, it's bad form to immediately re-nominate an article directly after there's been consensus to keep it. If you can re-nominate right after a keep decision, than the keep decision is essentially meaningless. I would not be opposed to waiting awhile and then re-nominating, like they did for Murray's predecessor in the district, Mark Ellmore. -LtNOWIS (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a few of the 'keep' votes during the last AfD seemed to be only temporary... a few even said 'keep, temporarily' or 'keep during the election' or words to that effect. Perhaps the previous AfD came to the wrong conclusion? Anotherclown (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where there is any policy to allow for those kind of comments in an AfD. Accordingly, the admin who closed made the decision he could - keep. If that decision was incorrect, then this belongs at DRV, not in a second AfD ~~three~~ six hours after the original close. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I should note that I just removed two "references" from the article, one sourced to a blog and the other to a radio station repeating something from examiner.com (a "reader-written" non-reliable source), and both of which were definite BLP violations attacking Murray's opponent). I am of course assuming good faith on the part of Jim Miller. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as no admin has closed this nomination yet for being too soon after the intial nomination and decisive keep, I must note that absent a procedural close I believe that the article should be kept. The prior AfD was closed as Keep without noted exception or explanation, and any after the fact explanations should not be relevant to the re-openeing of the discussion. There is no policy-based allowance for a "Provisional Keep" or a "Temporary Keep." The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:V through international coverage in The Irish Times and The Telegraph, as well as national coverage in the National Review. While my opinion is that all major party candidates for federal office are notable, this particular campaign attracted far wider than normal coverage and clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:12, 11 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 Quantile. and move to Tercile Jujutacular ^talk 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TERCILE[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a dictionary - WP:NOTDIC (and it's not even the right definition anyway) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Would a redirect to Quantile be a good solution? That's the only article here that mentions the word (and internally it links to wikt:tercile). -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's rationale and Quiddity's outcome. Rename it to tercile (without a redirect) per our naming conventions and redirect the resultant page to quantile. Uncle G (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Uncle on this one. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:42, 7 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 TV5. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV5 Global[edit]

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

The only sources I could find on this article were Wikipedia, Youtube, and Twitter, which are clearly not reliable. Perhaps some could find better ones than I did, but right now, this falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is another TV5 Global station, which isn't this one, at TV5MONDE. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -WayKurat (talk) 08:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to TV5 without prejudice toward recreation once "TV5 Global" is actually up and running and gets itself some coverage. It's just that it isn't notable yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to redirect to TV5 if there are no sources for spinoff yet.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:16, 9 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) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City Life (nightclub)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Minor curiosity at the abandoned Dixie Square Mall, has had no references since its creation four years ago, and a search on Google and Highbeam Research gave no indication of any reliable sources existing. I would have speedied this as A7, but considering the article has been around so long, I want to ensure that all the bases are properly covered. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the general notability guideline - I can't find any reliable sources with a quick Google search. Arctic Night 05:35, 3 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) 16:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lennie dean[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. E. Fokker (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; there is no documentation available about her "many roles," and the sole reference is a clip of a recording of a play. --NDSteve10 (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real assertion of notability, only source is a recording of a play. JIP | Talk 07:56, 3 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 all. Courcelles 08:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress Of Freedom[edit]

A collection of related articles created by user User:Sprams, all featuring related apparently non-notable people and organizations, all with similarly poor and unverifiable sourcing. In fact the same unverifiable sources are used for all of these articles. I believe these should be deleted because there is no independent evidence of notability.

I suggest that those reading take the time to investigate at least a few of these articles in-depth, and in particular pay attention to the references given for each article. You will find that the following sources are the only ones used in all of these articles:

A single article, "Media Organization On The Move" from a publication called "The Stump" whose ISSN (1925-0444) I cannot find in any database. Even if it exists, I suspect it of being self-published, and in any case a single article can hardly lend notability to such a diverse range of subjects.

I also found NO EVIDENCE that this exists in any form. Though I did find a segment in The New Republic called The Stump... isn't it ironic? -Addionne (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various references to unremarkable Government of Canada business registration entries, corporation registrations, routine statutory publications in the Canada Gazette, and CRTC filings. These serve to confirm the existance of the various entities, but do nothing to demonstrate notability.

References to "The Fortress Newspaper" which is one of the articles listed here, and appears to be under the control of the Fortress Of Freedom organization.

A book, "A Slant On Life And Living" with an ISBN which cannot be verified, but which I assume is self-published.

Turns out this an album released by FOF records and a related book of sheet music published by FOF. Unless it is REALLY BIG, page 9 of this book cannot possibly contain enough info about all these subjects to count as significant coverage for each. -Addionne (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another book, "Protest! The Fall of Civil Disobedience" which is verifiable, but published by Fortress of Freedom.

Sundry vaguely-related sources such as the audience figures for a radio station which allegedly carried Fortress of Freedom material.

In particular it's worth noting that the TV audience figures claimed in the Fortress Of Freedom article seem to be misleading; it is clear from the clip of the show on the fortressoffreedom.com website that the show was a paid broadcast, infomercial style. (For future reference, the clip begins with a disclaimer at 00:52; "The following program is presented as a paid advertisment. The opinions, statements, representations, and/or warranties contained in the said program explicit or implied are those of the participant and/or sponsor.")

It is clear that the association, Maurice Ali, the newspaper, the record company, the documentary and the documentary subject are all closely related, and there is no evidence of notability for any of them other than the references to sources clearly under the editorial control of the subjects themselves.

In short none of these tightly inter-related articles demonstrate any evidence of notability from an editorially-independent source.

Delete all as nominator. Thparkth (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - as he points out below, some of these articles were created by User:Tafyug. This does not affect my deletion rationale. Thparkth (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, without any further outside sources, these appear to be well-crafted self-promotion and little more. --NDSteve10 (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all. These advertisements seem to be getting savvier and savvier the more Wikipedia ages. It looks like the author read the MoS, but this article still completely fails the WP:RS and WP:N guidelines. Referencing your own magazine is never a good sign, and I can't find any news sources verifying this thinktank's notability. Nice catch, nom.--hkr Laozi speak 06:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all: Since the OP states the articles were written by Sprams I guess I can participate in the discussion. Instead of judging each article individually the OP has nominated they all be judged in bulk and deleted. Voting seems to endorse this as all or nothing so I am making comments as such. In these eight articles, we are dealing with mostly separate individuals and corporations which are also separate legal entities. The only constant unifying entity for all articles is a brown skinned Muslim man called Maurice Ali. It is debatable whether Mr. Ali's book published by a corporation is self-published, the reference is only for identification purposes anyway. Getchell's book is definitely not self-published for that same reason. The newspaper is published by FOF Inc. with input from the non-profit but that is as far as it goes. It has no relationship now to the archiving corporation or the record label or Donald Brasseur, so really should be a valid reference in those cases. I am pretty sure the ISSN on "The Stump" publication is valid and don't know why it does not work for the OP. Anyway those are just side issues and here are the main arguments:

1. Donald Brasseur. For musical artists one valid point of notability (good enough for an article to stand) is a half-hour show devoted to the artist which appeared on July 26, 2010, But I will offer evidence that Don has been the subject of two shows from the 1950s through BBC and one show with CBC in the nineties (one clip also shows some morning show with CITY TV here in Toronto before the CBC clip). I started that article and it has Don's service number (War experience and medals) that can be traced through the DOD here in Canada. I have radio recordings and video recordings with plenty evidence that Donald Brasseur is notable without a doubt. Only thing is that Don is 85 and his last interview was seventeen years ago with the CBC - well before the Internet, Google and the wayback machine. So the only Internet material comes from these various sources related by the brown skinned Muslim man Maurice Ali. But I have read the notability requirements and they state that an article can not be deleted if there is a good possibility those sources could be located. I am sure with effort the CBC show could be located. The CTV show is definitely able to locate and that is more than enough to keep both of Don's articles. Since this is an all or nothing affair, I guess they all stay.

http://iaij.com/Scrap_Book.wmv

http://iaij.com/CityTV_CBC.wmv

http://www.donaldbrasseur.com/DonBrasseurAM740.wma

http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4958#4958

http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5121#5121

With regard to the television programs, they are real TV programs and not infomercials or advertisements you have the Certification numbers so Google it and you will find it in the French and English listings from the CRTC website. Both networks review the material for suitability and are under absolutely no obligation to air it - so the show really made it on the air as any other TV show. I have two files with the certification letters:

http://fortressoffreedom.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5121#5121

http://fortressoffreedom.com/CRTC4.jpg

A show that starts off by saying "What you are about to see is an experiment in free speech" will always have the usual disclaimer at the beginning (BTW, the guy in that half hour TV show is the lead person in AAVRY KNAPP - also up for deletion as non-notable)

2. Since the OP has nominated a bulk deletion, he has allowed me the opportunity to enter in an argument that can't be considered with an individual article deletion discussion, but since this is a bulk debate it looks like we can finally expect an answer: With regard to the not-for-profit journalist association:

Why are we picking on this article (connected to the brown skinned Muslim guy) which at least presents references when the vast majority of associations in the category (Canadian Journalist Associations) do not have a single reference and has in some cases stood for years like that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Association_of_Journalists

CJA has the largest number of members and largest professional number of journalists and does not have a single reference (actually that is kind of laughable when you think about it). The "pat" response for individual deletion requests is that each article is evaluate individually but since we are doing it en-mass here the question is now valid. Since I believe this debate is resolved by someone with official status, we should receive a reply outside of the standard response. The same argument can be used for the newspaper article and for the record label article.

3. And as for the bio of the brown skinned Muslim guy Maurice Ali, well one of Wikis administrators worked on the bio and did not seem to think it had any red flags - just saying there are more opinions on that article which may not be the same as the OPs.

Finally, when I saw this deletion request I sent a message to the journalist org (IAIJ) that they might want to see the Wiki machine in action, so we may or may not get an article out of this - up to them - just saying many eyes are watching this (if they do I suspect they will forward a draft to your chief people/founder for response as quoting "Klingon272 said" just does not seem journalistic ). Wiki's main objective was to archive all of human knowledge, wholesale deletions of articles like this do not seem to follow that objective. Nobody has claimed the articles are a hoax, just that the references are weak. The OP seems to have requested a Sprams article be deleted a week or two ago and was merged/redirected by an administrator, that is now again up for deletion - just showing that the OP has been doing this before to articles connected to the brown skinned man with a Muslim name. These articles are not being given the chance for other editors to find references to improve it, AAVRY KNAPP has only been up a few days and Don's show less than 24 hour before being lumped in here for deletion. Read all the notability and reference criteria, none of it is absolute, and this is done deliberately (you will read "Articles should instead of Articles "must" - things like that).

Let the debate continue (BTW, I have been photographing/archiving the pages in question, Just an FYI). Oh! Here is the audience figures the OP said were vague and could not find, it took me all of thirty seconds ( http://zoomerradio.ca/about/ ). They claim half a million and I 548,000 and I bet with more search we can nail down that number. Pity the OP did not try to improve the articles and instead just offered all of them up for deletion. And remember to wear your poppy for Remembrance Day (November 11), hopefully Donald - who took a bullet/shrapnel for us in WW2 - does not celebrate that day with his life story being deleted at Wikipedia.

Tafyug (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would like to respond briefly to the points Tafyug has raised. 1. The Donald Brasseur documentary was clearly aired as paid programming. This page on fortressoffreedom.com clearly shows the contract itself with CTV (search for "contract from CTV") with the heading "PAID PROGRAMMING CONTRACT". This means that we are dealing with what is essentially a self-published TV show. Not a problem in any way, except that it means it can not be used to establish notability, in the same way that it could if CTV had commissioned or purchased the show as regular content with commercial value. 2. I can only assure you that skin colour is not a factor here. 3. Without seeing the wider picture across all of these articles, it may not have been obvious to another editor that the notability claim for Mr. Ali depends entirely on sources that he either controls or is closely connected to. Finally, I did not previously nominate any of these for deletion, but I did add notability and primarysources tags to one of them, which may be what Tafyug is referring to.Thparkth (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator is not denigrating Islam or people of Middle Eastern-descent, and it's a silly ad hominem and in bad faith to accuse him as such. His rationale for deletion is that it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS), and the articles clearly do not. Wikipedia's guidelines are flexible, but there is no reason why these entries should be exempt from the same scrutiny that is applied to every other article. No amount of pathos changes that.--hkr Laozi speak 15:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the argument that other unreferenced articles exist is a flawed one. There is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. If they were nominated, they could possibly be deleted as well (depending on whether reliable sources exist, and simply are not included).--hkr Laozi speak 15:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - also Delete. I encourage you to check out WP:AGF and read about Wikipedia's policy to assume good faith on the part of all editors. Your accusations of racism and dramatic appeal about veterans above are unfounded, unnecessary - and provide no value to this discussion. These articles were nominated because they do not show notability. That does not mean none exists, but that the nominator did not feel they had enough coverage in reliable sources. I agree. If you can track down more sources, please add them to the article. Otherwise, my argument is Delete.

-Addionne (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's points are sound, in that the sources provided are problematic. I can confirm that the subjects exist, which is good as far as it goes, but I'm not seeing anything that really shows notability, under our rules. I would add, in reference to one of the Keep comments above, that claiming that the nominator is racist is precisely the wrong argument to make in this case. It might be different if the nomination was "Delete because subject is of X race". But that's not the case here. You may also wish to review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; you're correct that we review these articles as a group, rather than as individual subjects, but that does not mean that the existence (or absence) of other related articles has any impact on whether these articles should be kept. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. A couple of things. First of all this interrelated argument is flawed. If the Brasseur show was produced by Fireworks and lobbied by Canwest to play on Global TV and then written about in the National Post, nobody would see a problem with notability. But all those corporations are - or were - owned/controlled by the same entity/people. The multi-faceted organization (in the subject articles for deletion) was patterned after the big multinational media conglomerates and is the reason it has the agility to do what it does. It does it the same way the bigger companies do it. But the ultimate reach through the broadcaster is the same - the end product is the same. The Fortress of Freedom Corporation did not put the CTV show on the air, the More Vision Corporation (and it's subsidiary) were the ones that put the show on the air. The vast majority of movie/television/music productions are produced this way - just ask Sony. But these articles are being attacked while the others are not, even though the principle and end result are the same. This "is" prejudice (as used in the abstract sense). Think about it.

Speaking of prejudice, I never said the OP was racist this is you other people connecting the dots. I was just making statements of fact. I no more said the OP was racist than I no more said the OP was, for example, motivated by professional jealousy or a combination of both.

Donald Brasseur has the same physical distance from the production house that taped the show and the record company that sold his music and the advertising company that aired ads for the show on CIUT and put it on CTV. In the eyes of the law, government and the telecommunications regulators, the subject organization and the multinational media conglomerates are exactly the same. The articles in the paper "The Fortress Newspaper" are just as valid for him as he has no prejudicial connection to it. Funny how nobody wants to concentrate on Donald Brasseur.Tafyug (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you would agree that companies like Canwest/Global are established as reliable sources. As publicly-traded companies, their editorial procedures are transparent - and they are held responsible by their shareholders to maintain their ethics and journalistic integrity. If the National Post reports on a story that has any shred of public interest, it is subsequently reported by countless other media outlets with their own independent fact-checking departments checking every detail.

To say that Fortress of Freedom, Inc. does not have complete control over the Fortress newspaper is highly questionable: The two companies share a website and a phone number. (All the companies share these contact details, as a matter of fact...) One of the phone numbers is the *home number* of the founder, M. Ali - the other is a cell phone, which we can fairly assume is his. Having a cell phone number as the primary contact for your business does not detract from notability, but it makes me question the newspaper as a valid, reliable source for the other articles. None of the companies has listed a verifiable street address for contact. There is NO contact information for the UK office of any of the companies. There is scarcely enough to prove the existence of these companies, let alone their reliability as sources.

As for Donald Brasseur - the burden here lies on the article's writers to provide proof of notability. It may be that there was a BBC or CBC interview or TV special from 15 years ago. It may also be that I am the kid playing hockey on the back of the five dollar bill, but if I can't provide supporting evidence of any form, we have to assume I am not. If you find any evidence of it, bring that information here, because it would go A LONG WAY to providing some justification why Mr. Brasseur should have an article. -Addionne (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. First of all I thank you all for looking around that organization, as more people eye it and look for weakness, the better it seems to look around here. First of all, the publicly traded corporations are accountable to the shareholders for profitability more than anything else. The journalists and editors have their opinions bought and sold by their paychecks and advertising dollars. I don't trust anything they say. The Fortress Paper is published and owned by a private corporation. If ownership was by sole-proprietorship then I would agree that company is the same as the individual that owns it and thus clearly self-published, that is the "why" of incorporation. BTW, many of the largest papers in Canada are published by individuals. The integrity of the paper is assured by the company giving full editorial control of the paper to a non-profit journalist association where the Board of Directors and other matters are voted upon by the membership - membership of which is open to all regardless of race, creed, or color. Journalists are not paid but report out of a sense of civic duty, Nobody or entity at that organization influences what any particular journalist reports. The papers have zero advertising and thus will never have editorial influence on the journalists and editors. As such, The Fortress Newspaper conforms most closely to the truest forms of journalistic integrity . Money to pay for the paper comes from another corporation that archives journalist credentials mostly in the Third World for those journalists who's rights under Article 19 are not guaranteed in their country and could be revoked at any time. Other sources of money are from the membership dues and other small projects under group control. The papers are printed cheapest way and are manually folded and collated by the membership to save costs. This whole paper and journalist org was a business plan set up to deal with the vacuum ultimately being created by the loss of small time newspapers that is happening as we speak. The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ are some of the oldest organizations which embraced the citizen journalist. At a meeting with the Special Advisor to the Secretary General at The Canadian Commission for UNESCO, IAIJ founder Maurice Ali and one of the directors (the mysterious person from the U.K. office who flew over for the meeting) were told that they were the first such organization they had ever dealt with. As of this moment they are still in negotiations to become members with the Commission. So they are breaking ground here. As I said before, The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ conform, by their structure and philosophy, closest to the purist form of journalistic integrity and their citations should carry as much weight - if not more - than the big profit motivated newspapers. For any students following this out there, these underfunded papers of irregular publication are your future and organizations such as Wikipedia are going to have to, sooner or later, set clear policy "and" accommodate newspaper organizations such as The Fortress Newspaper and IAIJ. We may as well start that dialogue right here.

So yes, if I am to be the only one to fight for these articles, I am not going to look for other sources to validate them, I am going to take a stand and prove that the present sources are as good if not better than the usual suspect sources. I think that is the way the people at that organization would want it. As for the phone numbers and lack of address at the site, all that information is out there if you really look, or you could call and ask. They are small and proud of it, but have the influence and media access of billion dollar companies. I think that concept is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafyug (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Question. I have a question for anyone versed in the workings of Wiki. Realize that as much as I adore those articles I was involved with up for deletion, they are just eight out of a possible 3,500,000 in English Wiki. That said, I am faced with the decision as to go ahead and try to lobby for change/amendment to what constitutes reliable sources and associated policies. I am still new here, but I suspect no matter what arguments are listed here, that the articles will be deleted (though these arguments could be used as reference points to a request to open discussion for possible policy amendments and changes). This is because Wiki policy in this case will rule in the end, so it should be amendment of such policy/policies to prevent further problems with other articles. If that is so:

Does the instigator for this change have to be the affected user account, or could this be handed off to another individual/individuals or organization?

Realize that my debating skills and mental abilities are too feeble to trust in such an undertaking, but I will try if that is the only way. Seeing that no "smoking gun" was found as yet to discredit the newspaper or journalist association, I feel they are good candidates to bring forth in such a discussion for change and amendment. Such changes would affect millions of articles and editors so I think maybe this is worth the effort.Tafyug (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only noticed Thparkth's notice about the deletions today so I am a bit late to the discussion. I started editing here after seeing one of the Tafyug articles show up in the search engine. I think two of the above are mine. I say keep but not strong keep as when I step back and look at the articles they are not in the best shape they could be in, but there seems to be indications for improvement if allowed to develop. Certainly Donald Brasseur is salvageable, almost positive it is. If you look at this clip (from Donald's televison show and yes it is a real TV show as I saw it) http://iaij.com/Scrap_Book.wmv you will see Donald Brasseur leafing through a scrapbook of newspaper clippings. I should repeat that: He is leafing through a scrapbook of newspaper clipping! If he is still alive it should be a simple matter to note some of the newspapers and articles and replace The Fortress Newspaper and nefarious The Stump citations. I am sure that article will meet Wikipedia standards. As for the other articles, realize that what I see is an underfunded group of organizations populated by well meaning and intentioned people working free for altruistic purposes. They have made some notable achievements and have staying power and probably the articles should be left with notability tags to try and save them and then be revisited a later date. Certainly the articles deserve this as I continually come across law firms and real estate companies and investment companies masquerading as encyclopedic articles which should be deleted on the spot.Sprams (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I am appalled at the over the top actions of two people on both sides of this debate. I see strong indications that both work in the television industry and that much of the ill thought out actions and insults arise because of this and are unbecoming and not in the best interests of the Wikipedia organization. This whole thing should and could have been handled in a better way. Oh, and Tafyug, save the Wiki world another day, you have more important things to do with your time. That is all I have to say.Sprams (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sprams, I must admit that out of all of these articles, Donald Brasseur is the one that I am least happy about having nominated for deletion. I think there is a good chance that notability could be established for him based on those press clippings - if the details of some of them could be added to the article. Thparkth (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: From the scrap book video I found a signed letter from Jack Marshall of the "New Musical Express" returning some photos to Don and stating the article in the magazine, the page and the date of the publication and have used this as a reference. One television segment in the above videos (CityTV_CBC) was a segment from "Adrienne Clarkson Presents" CBC (November 29, 1990) and is confirmed here:

http://www.tvarchive.ca/database/16181/adrienne_clarkson_presents/episode_guide/ That is what I got from the stuff here before breakfast and I think there are seventeen more citations possible from what I have seen but would require a personal visit to get the clippings and examine them. Donald Brasseur is definately notable.

Similarly, notability in a media company (certainly a record label) were notable performers and are one test of a record label's notability. This can be conferred by a notable performer under contract. In this case Donald Brasseur is signed to FOF Records through Fortress Of Freedom Inc. (Usually called the parent company) and all of his songs, published works, use of image and press clippings all of that is assigned ownership to the label to bring in royalties for the artist. So yes, the artist's notability can be used as notability to the record label that signs the performer. Because of this I have added outside notable citations for Donald Brasseur into the "FOF Records"/"Fortress Of Freedom" articles. A record label that has no artists of any notability rarely has any notability itself. By that reasoning I state that the article FOF Records/Fortress Of Freedom articles not be deleted.

By the same reasoning the Article "The Life And Times Of Donald "Boots" Brasseur" now that notability is established, now has outside evidence of notability to keep it from deletion as the TV show has a subject that is notable (I have also thrown it into the "Maurice Ali" article as it can only help). This is not the only evidence to support the articles. I am just addressing the criticism on "no" evidence of notability. A show about a non-notable person would probably be seen as not worthy of mention at Wickipedia but a show on the life of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan particularly if only one of a few - is notable due to the subject and worthy of a article of its own. Donald has been on at least seven TV shows and all the particulars of this show should not be merged to clutter up what will eventually be a very detained listing of his life experience. Expect the show to show up at the Library and Archives database in Canada sooner or later as it has been submitted and the show - by itself - is an important historical work worthy of an article in Wikipedia (particularly with regard to Protestant and Catholic blessing before a major battle which hardly was ever mentioned (if at all) in any Canadian war documentary to date).

With regard to the journalist association article (International Association Of Independent Journalists) out of the 17 journalist associations in its category, only six (which also includes IAIJ) have any citations or references. The larger more important associations have none and have been that way for years. Because notability or deletion tags have not been used in years (plenty of time to notice them) it can be said that in this narrow field of journalist associations, that the lack of notation is an endorsed policy on these associations and as such the IAIJ association should be kept on the site alongside them. Why is this so? Possibly because many journalists are also members of the few journalist associations and thus cannot improve the articles themselves due to COI . So for these associations its a dammed if you do and dammed it you don't situation and that may be the reason for a common lack of referencing.

Similarly for newspapers (regarding the article: The Fortress Newspaper). Unless that paper folded or is sold or sued or gets in some negative incident, other newspapers will not report about them. That is also specific to the industry and again journalists with a paper can not contribute to stories about the paper due to conflict of interests. So unless you are a huge paper with a colorful past you will have few notable citations. Most of the papers on Wikipedia fall into this class, no different from the citations for The Fortress Paper. This seems to be a policy endorsed by Wikipedia over the years by lack of deletion for papers with few citations in this narrow specific area of articles and The Fortress Newspaper article should therefore be allowed to stand alongside the others.

At the very least the articles for deletion here have only been around for a few weeks, were started by editors with no previous experience and as such should be given the opportunity to be allowed to develop over time amongst several different editors. Wikipedia has a scale for article development so this shows articles do not have to be in finished state to be included int the main space of the website. The philosophy of Wikipedia is to be inclusive and not exclusionary and we should be looking for articles to enhance the database and helping them along instead of searching for reasons to delete theme. On the strength of these arguments I once again as that the articles be kept.Sprams (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say this, and others may disagree, but I don't think this is yet enough to establish that Donald Brasseur is notable. The Adrienne Clarkson TV episode you mention is described as "Four Toronto cabbies who hope for show business careers — as a harpist, harmonica layer, punk singer and comic-painter". Assuming he is the harmonica player in question, this actually sounds like evidence for his non-notability. However if the NME is an in-depth report (not just a trivial mention) and if there are other similar reports in other sources, he is possibly notable. I'm not an expert in wikipedia's notability guidelines for musical acts, but WP:BAND is the target to aim for.

If we assume that Donald Brasseur is notable (which based on the evidence so far I do not accept), this does not in itself make his record label notable, or a documentary about him notable. Notability is not inherited. Nor is it sensible to add references to a British magazine article about a musician in the 1950s to attempt to establish notability for a Canadian corporation registered fifty years later.

Your remarks about other articles in the "journalism association" field having no references, and that this "is an endorsed policy on these associations" are addressed by WP:OTHERSTUFF. Basically, if you feel those other articles aren't notable, and you can't find evidence of notability after a good faith search you are quite entitled to nominate them for deletion, just like any other editor. In any case, they are irrelevant to this discussion about these articles.

Thparkth (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for your reply. As you can see we have our differences but Wikipedia has very elastic policies by design. Sometimes they need to be tested. And sometimes, my dear friend, it helps to step back and realize what this whole argument represents as this is not a competition, this is not what "you" think, but a consensus among a group. I am quite happy to defer to others on your nominations for deletion. I will tell you that I will not be nominating other articles of like citation because you have nominated these. I like to think of myself as a builder and creator and not a destroyer. I thank everyone for their contributions in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprams (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 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. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged United Nations bias in Israel-Palestine issues[edit]

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

This page was created by a newcomer from text cut & pasted from Israel, Palestine and the United Nations, without discussion. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the creator This article is not a fork. I created it by splitting a big article per wikipedia:Summary style, but the split in the original article was reverted, thus creating an illusion of fork. Yceren Loq (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing malformatted nom; nominator hardcoded it into the log. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BOLD FORKing. Undecided at this point. --Shuki (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ This article may make sense if turned into a sub article of the original article, and the original article changed to summary style. Marokwitz (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was exactly the idea. A huge article was split in two. And I requested someone savvy to write a summary section in the parent article. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based on your clarification I withdraw my !vote. I find it very strange, to say the least, that the nominator didn't mention the revert. The fact that you are a newcomer that made a bold edit is no reason for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very much legit splitting of a clearly defined topic from a HUGE parent article per "summary style" mentioned above. Yceren Loq (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a very bad and blatant POV fork attempt. Having this as a standalone article gives way too much weight to a fringe criticism, work the subject matter back into the parent article and condense as necessary. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you see fringe criticsm, just delete it. But there are quite a few separate "Criticism" articles in wikipedia. Yceren Loq (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the article creator acted in good faith by boldly splitting an oversize article per Wikipedia guidelines. While editor consensus should ultimately determine whether or not the split is warranted, I don't believe it should be deleted at this time. I would also humbly suggest that the nominating editor assume good faith, particularly on heated topics relating to Israel/Palestine. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Uncle Dick. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Uncle Dick. JuJubird (talk) 03:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good faith is not the issue here. Reading its title, this article doesn't bring anything more than a potential pov-fork. Noisetier (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the article helpful and to the point, on a stand alone basis, and as such will encourage other users to expand the contents. Davshul (talk) 10:09, 10 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) 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability no sources. Two of the three Emcee links are false positives. No other notable acts signed, no notability. Previously deleted via AFD in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks any reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:N. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:20, 4 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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Williamson[edit]

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

A writer which apparently writes obituaries for several newspapers. There aren't many Google links, most hits for "Marcus Williamson" refer to an IT consultant which is likely a different person. Travelbird (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be about two different people. I don't think either one of them meet the notability guidelines though. Gigs (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 28 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) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree the odds are that it is covering two people, and our inability to be sure just highlights how the sources are very poor quality when it comes to supporting a biography. It is possible that if we could prove all the articles about various privacy / banking / etc issues were the one person it might achieve notability, but there's just no evidence. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:05, 3 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel Sachs[edit]

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

The article only contains around three sentences of biographical material, and it's not clear whether Mendel Sachs is notable enough. If he is, then the biography needs to be lengthened and well-sourced.

The main issue of this article is that it makes very large claims in regards to theoretical physics. The references are only to books written by Mendel Sachs himself. In the first paragraph it is claimed that Sachs has finished Einstein's unified field theory. It is not clear as to what Einstein's unified field theory even is, and as it stands, the paragraph makes little sense. The only reference to back up this monstrous claim is simply a biography of Albert Einstein.

The only results found when searching Google for Mendel Sachs are his books (such as on sites like Amazon.com) and his own personal website and forums, and these are the only sources that constitute the references given. I haven't been able to find any references to his work by any third-party person, researcher, or organization.

But it doesn't pay to call for deletion at first glance. It would be good to hear other discussions on the validity of the claims given. If indeed the article's contents contain true and certifiable results, then these need to be back up by appropriate references and reviews. As it stands, the article seems to promotes a fringe theory, and should be deleted if kept in its current form. 173.30.27.150 (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2010

Completing nomination for IP. Rationale taken from article talk page. Jujutacular ^talk 01:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete. This paper indicates his work is not totally whacko, but the drift of the forum discussions is that there are fundamental flaws in it. In any case, if he had completed what Einstein tried to do for much of his later life, he would be really, really famous, and he's not. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GS h index = 13, so heading towards satisfying WP:Prof#C1. Notable fringer. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Notable Physicist whose Dingle-like article in Physics Today A resolution of the clock paradox (Phys. Today, Vol. 24, No. 9, p. 23 - 29.) is claimed to have caused such a stir that the whole letters page of the next edition was devoted to refuting its points. (Time machines: time travel in physics, metaphysics, and science fiction Paul J. Nahin p466). Clarityfiend's find of the article "Quaternions, Torsion and the Physical Vacuum: Theories of M. Sachs and G. Shipov Compared" by David Cyganski and William Page would also seem important. A more neutral tone, in my view, might help improve the article (Msrasnw (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Further support: A sysmposium was held in his honour [31] and a subesequent festschrift published Fragments of Science: Festschrift for Mendel Sachs ed Michael Ram.

also WorldCat reports some of his books being fairly widely held (eg. Einstein versus Bohr : the continuing controversies in physics Mendel Sachs (1988) held by 398 libraries in the US (for all 5 editions).) Some of his books have been subject to reviews (Msrasnw (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have modified the article a bit to try to help make it a little more neutral. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Libraries have fixed distributors that will send them whatever they have on their catalogue. This does not mean much, books that don't have a Wikipedia page are held by many more libraries. A birthday party is not a supporting evidence that the scientific community discusses his theories. Such events are common in every university, and to almost any older staff member, including office staff, and are almost certain to happen when some staff retires. He had a single article accepted on Physics Today which was not well welcomed by his peers. It seems fairly common to see published stuff somewhere in a university magazine for instance, that were considered patently wrong by specialists, as in this case. I fail to understand why such isolated case should be evidence for relevant research practiced in the scientific community. Research is published in scientific journals, not in popular magazines. A sound evidence of his relevance is to show that physicists in the Cosmology/Field Theory/Quantum mechanics community cite him as reference and create work based on his books in the peer-reviewed journals. I could not find any such evidence. 75.69.93.206 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. While I see the above opinions, my feeling on this one is different. Sachs himself is not a fringer, at least in the sense that he has done quite a bit of mainstream work: WoS shows >50 papers in solid journals. The trouble is that the scientific community has largely not taken up his work. Citation counts are 24, 21, 16, 12, 7, 7, ... (h-index 7) and these papers are all from the early 1970s. In other words, his work has had roughly 4 decades to exert influence, but has mostly been unsuccessful. The article itself is a different matter. The fantastic claim that he "completed Albert Einstein's unified field theory" is patently false. Importantly, the article does not provide a link to Unified field theory, where the lead-in plainly says "There is no accepted unified field theory. It remains an open line of research" and this is indeed the case. Most of the article appears to have been written by SJRubenstein, who may have romantic, if uninformed ideas about physics. I would be surprised if that individual and our subject are the same person. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep. Amended. Symposium and festshrift help. Perhaps he is more noted generally for his writings than his research. With suitable revisions, article should be keep-able. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

However, as I wrote above, you may want to consider the fact that such events are common practice to any staff member that retires. About the author of the page: observe that in his contribution history, he/she spent most of his/her time trying to get this name spread out across Wikipedia, even though the professor in question has no paper published in peer-reviewed journals that became standard material in any topic in physics (which I guess is true since I could not find a single evidence of strong robust citation history in peer-reviewed journals of this professor). 75.69.93.206 (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not a registered user, and I only collaborate sporadically with Wikipedia, so I don't know if my vote counts. But I would like to elaborate to why I think this is irrelevant material for an encyclopedia. The author in question have only one published paper on a peer-reviewed scientific journal: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=ea+Sachs,+Mendel. By his age, a professor is expected to have maybe something around 40 papers. Someone who claims to have completed a robust new field theory of gravity likely would have more than 100, showing his outstanding progress in difficult themes in physics. This is however, not the case. All his material have been self-published in books, and none were accepted by his peers in scientific journals. He did, however, publish unscientific material in magazines just to be criticized, as was pointed out. I don't think that really should mean anything. If everyone who published questionable and patently wrong claims were to have his Wikipedia page, then Wikipedia would have 10,000 more pages per month. His ideas are nowhere discussed in scientific community; if they were, one of his books would have several non-self citations in the SPIRES database. The person in question is free to publish his own views on many topics. However, I don't think from his SPIRES record that he is been read by physicists anywhere.75.69.93.206 (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some further further-support:(by Msrasnw (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) with interjections by 129.170.26.159)[reply]

Article in popular science press about his work: The New Scientist (the UKs most popular science mag.. (??)) 4th Jan 1973 has a couple of columns on some Sach's work (published in Nuovo Cimento the respected Italian peer-reviewed journal ) (It can be found here: [32])

I would not count a short book review in New Scientist as suggestion that the work is relevant. Again, lacks citations in peer-reviewed scientific journals. New Scientist publishes anything that ``looks cool. That is why it is popular magazine, not a place for research.129.170.26.159 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a review of some his articles rather than a book review and being in the pop. press makes for notability if not necessarily good science. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Other articles in peer reviewed journals which have Sachs' name in the title:

Edwards, Jack (1975) Lamb Shifts for Hydrogen, using the Sachs elementary interaction theory. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 13(5) is another article which seems to be directly addressing one of his theories and mentions his name in its title. It is addressing Sachs work in his Sachs, M. (1968).Nuovo Cimento,53A, 561-564 and Sachs, M. (1971b).International Journal of Theoretical Physics,4, 453-476. Sachs, M. (1972a).International Journal of Theoretical Physics,5, 35-53. Sachs, M. (1972b).International Journal of Theoretical Physics,5, 161-197.

Right, but no citations since 1975. Just the fact that you need to work really hard to find a single supporting evidence somewhere that was written but never became mainstream science should be seen as supporting evidence for deletion.129.170.26.159 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one dated 2002: On the origin of asymmetric aging in the twin problem: Comments on M. Harada's and M. Sachs's views - by Abiko S PHYSICS ESSAYS, Volume: 15, Issue: 2, Pages: 172-175 Published: JUN 2002 - (I don't think I am working hard!) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Physics Essays - Volume 4 Number 1 March 1991 Marek Czachor On Sachs’s Approach to the Unification of General Relativity and Electrodynamics.

Nobel prize winning physicist attending the symposium in his honour and published an article in his festschrift: Willis Lamb, the quantum physicist, is mentioned as one of the two Nobel prize winners to attend the Symposium in Sachs honour mentioned above and his paper "Super-Classical Quantum Mechanics" is in the Sachs' festschrift. Msrasnw (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not really sure why would the presence of invited guests in the retirement party be relevant support of anything. In fact, Lamb does not cite the author in question in his papers. This is because in every QFT textbook in QED, the author would never be brought into the discussion about the Lamb shift, because the relevant work was done by others. 129.170.26.159 (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Sachs' theory is legitimate and Sachs Physics career has been distinguished so it would be unprofessional to delete the article. It is notable enough until it is disproven.Numberonesurvivor (talk) 21:03, 9 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 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exbii[edit]

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

Barely dissuaded myself from nominating for speedy A7 as I don't yet have enough experience in that area. Self-referenced, no signs of notability from a search. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG Mechanical digger (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete: A7~~Delete. Article has no claim of ~~importance~~notability from WP:RS per WP:WEB... all it says is that it's a message board and that it exists. The rest is unencyclopedic fluff. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe a popular desi entertainment board would be sufficient? Mechanical digger (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but A7 also states that claim of importance must be credibly substantiated. The content of this article does nothing to lend credibility to that statement. Of course, erring on the side of caution is perfectly fine. :) --Kinu ^t/_c 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Live and learn, etc. Mechanical digger (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've actually switched my !vote to a regular delete, given that a high Alexa rank in India could be considered a claim of importance, albeit a very weak one. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious.Doesn't this suit to exist as there is one big category of internet forums exists in Wikipedia.There are more than 200 pages on that category.I think by re-writing the page,it can be preserved.Illegal.person (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'd note that this article has been subject to a high degree of vandalism in recent days; I somehow ended up with it attaching itself to my watchlist after reverting one spate, yet I simultaneously somehow missed the next spate until just now. Accordingly, I've locked the page from anonymous and new user edits. That said, I'm not seeing a serious or properly sourced claim of notability here, so delete — but watch for continued vandalism in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the author of the eXBii page.

Since its inception, the eXBii page has had two notable references in Bigboards and Alexa. The rankings in big-boards and the traffic statistics shown at Alexa clearly substantiate the claim that it is a very popular desi entertainment board. I started the article, only after reading up on wikipedia's notability guidelines. I think Alexa and Bigboards are most definitely regarded to be notable in that regard? Please feel free to correct if i am wrong here.

Also, with regard to the article projecting a biased view i would appreciate it if someone could take the trouble to point out any statements that might suggest a possible bias. While i have done my best to keep it unbiased, it is quite possible that there might have been an oversight in this regard.

Siddhesh (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The article shows the website is in the Alexa top 100 for India [33]. It seems it's notable, although I can't point to any third party publications. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Magog and Siddhesh, where on WP:WEB is it stated that a ranking on Alexa or Bigboards suggest notability? Mechanical digger (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It states that the articles must conform to reliable sources. Alexa is the most notable source of information for all web forums and a subsidiary of amazon.com as well. The wiki page on alexa pretty much confirms what i just said about it.Siddhesh (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles must indeed conform to reliable sources, but on what basis is Exbii notable? Your answer above refers to Alexa as a notable source, but I am asking about Exbii as a notable subject. Mechanical digger (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like stated earlier by Magog, Alexa ranks Exbii at #76 in its India specific rankings, which in itself is notable. Furthermore, it ranks high in most Asian countries as indicated by their country-wise stat. Also, a global wide ranking of 706 is very notable for a desi entertainment forum thus conforming to the stated lines regarding its popularity. Siddhesh (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:ORG, WP:GNG and WP:WEB does an Alexa ranking qualify an article as notable for inclusion? Please quote the relevant part. Mechanical digger (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: let's not beat around the bush anymore and simply state it: without other sourcing, an Alexa ranking by itself is generally not accepted as a prima facie indicator of notability. See WP:ALEXA. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday's a school day, didn't realise that existed! Mechanical digger (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going by this logic, wouldn't articles such as Fictionmania and literotica been deleted long ago? The Exbii article seems to have references similar to those. Raj (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is that there are no WP:RS that take an interest in Exbii that I (and so far any other editor) can find. The other two have a mustering of sources that I found with a google, so the cross hairs are off them! Mechanical digger (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think these kind of site's doesn't appear on public news papers or magazine in India,as it contains an adult section.Porn is still a taboo in India.This one is similar to the recent famous censored site (which has a wiki article).Savitha_bhabhi. This may appear on news and magazine references once Govt initiate some ban. :).So,even if this is one of the top visited site in India,there won't be much references available online. 59.92.223.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is actually a valid point, and skews the criteria for notability a lot, to the extent we might actually favor ignoring the guideline. I say ~~keep~~ (amended, see below). Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One would think there would be some sort of coverage somewhere, nonetheless. Given that pornography is a taboo topic in India, one would think that there would be a source (perhaps not necessarily from an India-based media outlet) that discusses the notion that a pornographic site has such popularity in the country. Indeed, the Savita Bhabhi article has such sources, including prominent and readily available discussion in Indian media, so the assertion that articles on possibly taboo Indian topics suffer from FUTON bias or non-reporting by WP:RS is a weak one. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that site is all about breaking taboos (which itself isn't taboo to discuss) and freedom of expression (which the foreign western press loves). This on the other hand, is just a site with a focus on smut. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my keep is contingent: keep if and only if reliable sources can be used on the article. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my !vote at some AfDs, but I find it easier to summarise as Delete until WP:RS are actually shown to exist... ;-) Mechanical digger (talk) 14:27, 29 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) 01:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was also referrring to the Savitha Bhabhi article as a reference on how adult related sites are treated in mainstream medias.Savitha Bhabhi was indeed popular among Indian internet crowd.It got prominence only when some organizations complained and asked for censor. Govt. censored it and it came to medias,TVs and other debates.So,the outcome is ,unless Govt. bans or some NGOs or right wing people start opposing something, these kind of sites,even if they are having heavy traffic,will not get any reference anywhere.I've just managed to digg through Indian medias and found some interesting reference here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ways-of-the-Indian-pervert/articleshow/692375.cms. It talks about user names but never refers to such sites.A close inspection will show that these are indeed user names on such popular forums. A quick check on the site shows that they are trying to maintain a balance between smut and regular discussions.They have quite good technical,News,movie review and other sections.Anyway I don't want to post a Keep vote,unless we all have a consensus.Illegal.person (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The pertinent point here is that a proper source of reference is hard to find in the print media for such websites, however popular they might be because of the category they come under. Whatever references can be dug up will only be those that make a passing / indirect reference to the website. Whether such sources can be considered is an entirely different issue altogether i guess. Siddhesh (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

maybe India needs Internet Censorship like China to block such sites from poisoning young minds —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a place to discuss the article, not your views on censorship. All of your edits to date appear to be soapboxing, such as on my and others' talk pages. Do you have anything constructive to contribute? Merely saying that you dislike the subject of this article is not helpful. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kinu are you a bot ? you guys discussed this for too long... delete it or STFU —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would recommend reading WP:NPA. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stop threatening new users , And I would recommend reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#Motivations_for_contributing —Preceding unsigned comment added by SyberGod (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 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 Big Time Rush. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Til I Forget About You[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable single with more coverage on a television episode than the single itself. Fails WP:NSONGS and based on hidden note, redirects will be reverted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Big Time Rush, band is notable, song is not. Also: "based on hidden note, redirects will be reverted", could you clarify what you mean by hidden note? Admins can always protect a page from being un-redirected, as was done with Al Gore III.--hkr Laozi speak 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This hidden note seen only when editing the article:  --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:07, 29 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) 00:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed the hidden comment per WP:OWN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS. If some fanboy recreates it (which WILL happen), redirect again and lock. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What TenPoundHammer said, redirect to the parent album, as per WP:NSONG, page-protect if necessary. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:58, 3 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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Santo Tomas student organizations[edit]

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

This type of list is not notable and should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR. Its entries have no independent notability either, and I don't see verified content that needs to be preserved, or a possible redirect worth saving. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What made you say that the article is not notable. Only a very small part of it is linked outside Wikipedia, so this article cannot be considered as a directory. I think this is very informative. Please give me two weeks to have this article fixed. Thank you. Pampi1010 (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is better suited to the school's own website than an encyclopedia, and if left will attract spammy external links, it has a few already. Wikipedia is not your school's student life brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how am I going to change the article? Though this article is not as comprehensive, Dartmouth has a similar article - Dartmouth College Greek organizations. Please, give me a couple of weeks to edit this article. Thanks. What if I will remove all the external links?Pampi1010 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely not possible to change the article, except by hosting on the school's website or finding other hosting on your own. It isn't comparable to the Dartmouth article, as that is a text article rather than a list and supported by more than a hundred sources. Sometimes what looks like a bad article at first glance can be improved and salvaged by editing, but that isn't the case here as the underlying concept is faulty. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I should accept the fact that the article will go nowhere. You guys know better. As the main author of the article, its just so sad to see my work get deleted. Maybe in a month or two, I'll just put up an article similar to that of Dartmouth. Thank you. Pampi1010 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait.. If an article such as List of youth organizations and Taipei American School student organizations can exist, why can't this article?Pampi1010 (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 28 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) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete every large university comprises of many student organisations, most of which can simply be found via the university website. lists are useful if they contain many notable entries. this does not. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a list of organisations that are not individually notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 07:58, 3 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) 07:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waltop International Corp[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, only one brief mention in Google News archives about a shares purchase by another company in 2006. Google search turns up only press releases and discussions on tech support lists. Evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator can be seen in it's pure spam beginnings, which have now been mostly cleaned up. Even with a lot of re-writing, about 2/3 of the article is devoted to discussing pros and cons of electronic stylus technologies, none of which are unique to this company. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is useful introduction for introduc the electromagnetic pen technolog.

and thanks the help of "top jim", this page is improving.

Now, it is better then other page for electromagnetic pen technolog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pe2pe2pe2 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 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) 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete 1 gnews hit. [34]. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 4 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 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Empower Playgrounds[edit]

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

Promotional. No refs. The concept of electricity generating playground equipment is novel, and may indeed imply notability if this is unique to this company. But we need some good refs, and the article should be written more about the technology than the company itself. Perhaps a merge is in order if an article about this type of technology exists. The Eskimo (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does need to be re-worked but a search in Lexis-Nexis Academic turned up 3 citations:
- Real-world connections; Engineering students show off projects at event Idaho Falls Post Register (Idaho), December 14, 2007 Friday, THE WEST; Pg. C1, 451 words, By KENDRA EVENSEN,
- Power of play: Y. project helps Ghanian kids spin electricity Deseret Morning News (Salt Lake City), June 19, 2008 Thursday, 662 words, Elizabeth Stuart Deseret News
- Playground power project from Utah shines light in Africa Waterloo Chronicle, January 10, 2010 Sunday, Pg. 01, 397 words

I also remember (but can't find) some recent documentary work on this company (60 Minutes?) that was looking at corruption by one of the suppliers (I think). Anyway, article needs work, but I'm convinced of notability (and likely will get around to foisting the sources on this article but if anyone else wants to do that while I'm dithering, go ahead). --Quartermaster (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 28 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) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is a little disingenuous that the "Inc." in the article's title is not part of the title link. Perhaps there is precedence for doing this, but when I came across the article, I thought it was about playgrounds that produce electricity...not a company bio. The Eskimo (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, strike that, I was the nom and I should AGF and let others hash it out. The Eskimo (talk) 19:44, 3 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. A merge discussion, of course, can be held outside of AFD. Courcelles 08:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jackson (Home and Away)[edit]

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

Article fundamentally cannot WP:verify notability due to a lack third-party sources that cover the subject in direct detail. The only sources here are tangentially related, more on topic for the article about Dannii Minogue. The only sourced parts of this article are redundant to that one. Without substantial coverage of this character by third-party sources, this article fails the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The role is notable as Minogue won a national award for her portrayal of the character. Dac04 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Home and Away characters. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect to list. Suitable merge target for a fictional element that doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:N. 24.114.233.34 (talk) 17:10, 2 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) 00:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the situation is quite as dire as the nominator believes. When Minogue joined Home and Away in 1989, the show was huge. There will be published coverage of the storylines out there if you look hard enough (mostly offline, I would imagine). Here's a couple to start with: [35] a book about Australian soaps and [36], a website that goes beyond the usual fan site and covers the storyline in some detail. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: I would support a merge if that would help to avoid a "no consensus" closure. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge would also require consensus. At present there is no suitable place to merge to. List of Home and Away characters is simply a list with no commentary. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:57, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halema Boland[edit]

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

Subject appears to be non-notable in the general sense, and as an entertainer. Bringing here in case I missed some sourcing somewhere. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete She has quite a presence on the Web [37] but I could not find any Reliable Sourcing about her, at least not in English. It's possible she is notable in Kuwait but I could not find the evidence to prove it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 2 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) 00:40, 3 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synical[edit]

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

Unverified, advert-filled BLP, created by the band and with no sources to back it up. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was not created by the band but rather fans from europe and united states. All names mentioned in this article are real and will attest to the validity of the information listed. There are NO ADVERTISEMENTS OF ANY Kind in this article. Furthermore, the entire wikipage is very precise and to the point. No other complaints have been made except the Poweruser named Chase me ladies I'm the calvary. I suspect he has other motives for trying to delete this page. He might be involved with another band named SYNICAL(UK) or ex-members of SYNICAL and is trying to remove this page/article for spiteful, mean, and illegal intentions. Brian Haught <personal information redacted for privacy>. IN OTHER WORDS, the editor Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry IS TRYING TO "GAME THE SYSTEM" AND YES I irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. i agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Realsynical, it is clear that you are trying to own the article and that you have some sort of conflict of interest here with regards to the band or those who support it. Please stop with the personal attacks or you may find yourself restricted from editing for disruption. Regards, –MuZemike 18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re the coi, Realsynical claims to be brian haught when providing an image [38] duffbeerforme (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done some cleanup on the article (which is unsourced and out of date). Strictly speaking this article could have been deleted under Speedy Deletion #A7, but it has been brought here instead. Keeping the article will require evidence of notability which is lacking completely so far. A good background to this can be found at the notability noticeboard header and the full guideline is here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:01, 1 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) 00:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND criteria 6. Band is (or was) made up of two or more independently notable musicians as listed at page. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an ugly mess, but Uncle Dick is right again, Keep for the reasons he says. I am certain this can be sourced with good references. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 10 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) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gherome Ejercito[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable Phillipino basketball player, no awards or honors, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to be mentioned and non-worthy of a stub. Yankeefan233 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's apparently played in the Philippine Basketball Association, which is a very popular national basketball league. G-hits aren't the only factor to determine notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes, Ghits are not a criterion, but we do need some sources to establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Played at the professional Philippine Basketball Association. Retired in the early 2000s, and Philippine newspapers archives mostly go back only up to 2005 at the earliest. This will need some work in fetching sources but they're available offline. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:53, 30 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) 00:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Assuming the Philippine Basketball Association is fully professional (as editors here and our article on it say; I personally don't have much knowledge about the league), he would meet WP:NSPORTS. That page doesn't explicitly mention the PBA, but there is an implication that players in such leagues are notable. Could use more sources, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, what source do we have that shows that he played in the PBA? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one. As far as I can remember he also played in the now-defunct Metropolitan Basketball Association (think of it as the PBA's ABA at the turn of the century) but I may not be right on that. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is this at AFD? PBA satisfies the professional guideline. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:26, 7 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 nomination has been withdrawn and there is nobody advocating delete. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Herbstein[edit]

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

I started to reference this, but I'm finding only passing mention--his book has won an award, but he appears to not have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A writer's notability is inextricably linked to his works (See WP:AUTHOR point #4). Winning the Commonwealth Writers' Prize for Best First Book is prima facie evidence of meeting point 4 as having "won significant critical attention". This Google Book hit does not have a pewview, but the little snippet available shows that there are print sources available to expand this biography. -- Whpq (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per #1 criteria of ANYBIO. He has received a significant award. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:45, 29 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) 00:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Author has won the Commonwealth Writers Prize, a very prominent literary award, so the article meets WP:AUTHOR.--hkr Laozi speak 06:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, with three keeps and no deletes, seems the right thing to do. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:33, 3 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SING (My Chemical Romance song)[edit]

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

No references to it whatsoever, the previous single has also been deleted until it charts. Wasn't sure if it would fall under speedy deletion so i thought to put it here. Grey Matter 23:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, keep it. --FlyAjiraAirways (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be released as a single in a few weeks, why delete the page just to rebuild it? Mark it as a stub for now. 75.189.144.219 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and failing WP:NSONG. The creator of this article has a long history of making song articles that end up failiing notability guidelines and end up being deleted or redirected - eo (talk) 15:51, 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) 00:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Most of the complaints with the article will be addressed in the coming days. The music video and single will be released tomorrow and in will more the likely meet all notability thresholds. – Zntrip 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Its going to be notable in less than a day, seems silly to delete what is already a fairly well written article, as articles on singles go. M1ke (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Until it chart. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agreed as above. Grey Matter (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to merge or remove it until it charts since it is an official single. It has enough information about the song and the music video to deem it worth keeping. The video will be released within the coming weeks and it seems pointless to merge it and then restore the page later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.102.64 (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been officially released, there is no reason why the page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.11.30 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now that it has charted, it should meet wikipedia's policy on music singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.102.64 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grey Matter (talk) 00:33, 10 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 Gary Powell. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Invasion Of...[edit]

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

Non notable band, also I think notability is not inherited in this case. Mattg82 (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gary Powell. Founder is notable, band is not. --hkr Laozi speak 06:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gary Powell. Some third-party coverage, but so far the sole reason they're getting attention is because Gary Powell is in it, so the best home for this information is the Gary Powell article. Not that that's much to merge - beyond the fact the band exists and why it was formed, most of this article is subjective opinion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Timneu22 · talk 14:19, 4 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) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Website Baker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently non-notable CMS system, article is referenced by associated web pages. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, likely speedy delete; this recreation of a deleted page does nothing to address the issues that got it deleted the first time. This is also advertising: ...primarily known for simple use. It has an automated installation program and a simple GUI (graphical user interface) that also allows computer beginners and less experienced users to publish content or information on the Internet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:54, 7 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 SPEEDY CLOSE. Invalid nomination, nominator makes no argument about whether the article should be deleted. Please discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. JIP | Talk 08:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Bonaventure (31)[edit]

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

ja:ボナヴェンチャー (軽巡洋艦) is translation from HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007. A Japanese Wikipedian insists that the article HMS Bonaventure (31) 10:17, 24 October 2007 section History, 1st paragraph is almost duplicate from the M.J.Whitley, Cruisers of World War Two An International Encyclopedia, ISBN 1-55750-141-6, p.114. Can you judge his opinion is correct or not? And is this copyvio or not? --Freetrashbox (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close wrong forum. This is for talk page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup and WP:SHIPS are the places to ask. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 04:57, 3 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.