< 18 October	20 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me' Mini Post[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:WEB, zero mention of this online apart from company site, this article and a Crunchbase entry. Single WP:Primary source is sole reference in article, no references from WP:Reliable sources. First-person personal account of site's construction suggests WP:Conflict of interest. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable web-site without coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hodara Real Estate Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP: all available sources appear to be local, promotional and link-sharing sites. I could not find coverage of any significant depth in independent sources. Not presently a notable organization. —Tim Pierce (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are weak. (My earlier prod removed without explanation.) Christopher Connor (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hardly any coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nom covers it pretty well. TN X Man 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Blasey[edit]

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

BLP of a musician which doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Per MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band". There is no indication that this individual has demonstrated notability outside of The Clarks. All sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY and Facebook. SnottyWong ^speak 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Clarks as per nom and WP:NBAND. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Clarks per the above. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It turns out that a certain amount of Blasey's notability comes from his solo work. Just now I've added five reliable sources that address his solo work directly. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik, regarding solo work separate from the band. Grsz¹¹ 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Paul Erik.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeopardy!. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Clue Crew[edit]

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

Non-notable aspect of a television game show. WP:NOTINHERITED, and this is a clear example of a minor, non-notable feature of production for a television show. Main television show article does not even mention Jeopardy! Clue Crew within the article.

AfDs related to WP:NOTINHERITED deletion argument for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! recurring categories

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Brain Bus

Sottolacqua (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jeopardy!. The Clue Crew is an important and recurring part of Jeopardy and should be mentioned in the article. There are various news and non-jeopardy.com results in Google, however I'm not sure it would be enough to warrant their own break-out article yet. -Addionne (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the point here is that the main Jeopardy! article is already large and bloated; this is significant information pertinent to the show but for which it is appropriate to spin-off into a sub-article. AfDing this article will only result in the merging of the information into the main article, bloating it, and compelling it to be spun off again. Robert K S (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jeopardy!. No need for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, seems to be the clear choice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Hendrikx[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article survived an earlier AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Hendrikx) but was later speedy deleted per CSD#A7 (Logs).

Concern = fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), references don't match most stated claims or not completely. Also nominated on Dutch Wikipedia [2]. Looking at his IMDb biography it seems that everything is just a bit polished up.
Concern 2 = promo pushing
Concern 3 = sock puppets. Main author is under investigation for sockpuppetry on the Dutch Wikipedia (see here sockpuppet request (in Dutch)). There is severe suspicion that user Bart hendrikx (renamed to Pim Sticks, request), User:Toos53 and several others are identical. IP-numbers seems to link to related companies.

If I didn't fill this out correctly, sorry. This is strange territory for me. Help is always accepted. Eddylandzaat (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly fails WP:N, Mhaesen (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (self) promo pushing, fails WP:N and non consistent/ confirming references Agora (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a pathetic case of self promo pushing Glatisant (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 York Region District School Board#Elementary schools. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Clarkson Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary school fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^speak 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Searching for "Adrienne Clarkson Public School" OR "Adrienne Clarkson Elementary" gets some news results. Not seeing anything standing out though. For Google books two results. [4] Yawn. Just woke up but my brain is still asleep. Not bothering with this now. Dream Focus 11:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable elementary school. The ghits in the previous comment all appear to be passing mentions, and not about the school itself. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list of schools in the jurisdiction, if one exists. Sebwite (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging, to school district page (USA), or to village, town, or city (other) as per usual procedure for primary schools.--Kudpung (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York Region District School Board#Elementary schools, where it appears in the list. Deor (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York Region District School Board. Articles for non-notable schools should be set to redirect to the article for their related Board/District. PK T(alk) 17:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Magazine's List of The 20 Hottest Young Royals[edit]

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. This article contains no commentary. It is a simple reproduction of a subjective list created by the magazine for publication with the express purpose of selling magazines and as such is violation of their intellectual property. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% agreement with nominator. This is just a reproduction of the list, not an article about the list. These types of lists are trivial, regardless of other media mentioning them. I know that for the most part WP editors are not trying to rip anyone off but still we need to be careful about using copyrighted information without permission. There are other articles about this kind of list that should also be deleted. -Steve Dufour (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If someone decides at a later date that the list itself is notable enough to warrant an article about the actual list, then that's a different matter. But, as pointed out above, this is just a reproduction of a list based on purely subjective opinions. CLW (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Not copyvio it is not a reproduction of the article, but essentially a mere summary table of contents saying who the people covered are, and giving our own pictures of them. Look at the article--it has much more content. A table of contents is not copyvio. All major Forbes lists are in my opinion notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jovi Ware[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the Notability (sport) requirements, particularly those reserved for High School sports people; High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Note that the first clause would exclude all school papers and school websites along with most sport specific publications. The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage, especially game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews E. Fokker (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a vanity page. No indication of martial arts notability. Much of the article is on his father and instructors and notability is not inherited. Claim of being undefeated in "backyard amateur exhibition fights" is meaningless and participation in a teenage division of the first event of a new grappling organization also fails to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with the previous posters. The organization appears to be a very small local organization--how else do you fight as both a beginner and expert in the same event and fight the same guy twice? At best he appears to be the second or third best teenage wrestler in a town of 1300. Astudent0 (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this is anything but a vanity page--no notability or reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Hospitals[edit]

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

EP with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that show notability. The bar for bands seems to be set very low. -Steve Dufour (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted then Redirect entry to List of hospitals in New York City.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DisTract[edit]

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

Questionable notability, can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this software; the name doesn't help, either. Software is apparently unfinished and official website is apparently dead, so I don't think we will be getting any more coverage of it. T. Canens (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a dead project. Gigs (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the main author of this article. I had hoped it would go somewhere, but it doesn't look like it has.--greenrd (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I contacted the software's author (Matthew Sackman) via Twitter. He stated, "DisTract died several years ago. I'd have no problem with WP article being deleted. I have no plans to work on DisTract." — HowardBGolden (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Jay[edit]

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

Subject of the article is of no importance or significance: i.e. a real person, who appears NOT to meet criteria for notability for inclusion. Also main editor of this article appears to have a close connection with the subject: i.e. person himself . Mootros (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major-market broadcaster whose career exploits appear to have garnered him significant coverage by reliable third-party sources (like this). COI issues are a matter for tagging, not for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging keep. I generally don't like it when people post articles about themselves. However, there are plenty of claims to notability here, the decider for me being his inclusion on the sound of 2008 panel - that means the BBC rates him highly as a notable music pundit. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per subject meeting notability for various projects through WP:GNG. As the article now belongs to Wikipedia, concerns with COI are best addressed in this case by author being cautioned and article being sent to cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidered keep. I am the AfD nominator. Although the article still has major issues, recent changes[5] clearly indicate some form of notability. Mootros (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoned withdrawal is quite gracious. Yes, the article needs more work... but as you note, it is being seen to. The discussions you've had with the author reflect the best of Wikipedia in your willingness to assist others in addressing solvable issues. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jagmandar Dass Jain[edit]

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

Appears to be a promotional (auto)biography, and fails to establish notability as per WP:BIO. This is related to AfD Harsh Vardhan Jain. -Addionne (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KINDLY SEE THE TALK PAGE OF ARTICLE AND THEN YOU WILL FIND THE CORRECTIONS ALREAY DONE LONG BACK.

Talk:Jagmandar Dass Jain

HARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:COI by article's creator. Top Jim (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially Relevant Discussion
- Thanks to User:Bigger digger for some of these facts:
- Remaining references and external links are either repeats of above or hvjain.com / jaingroup.co.uk - which are the same site.
-Addionne (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails everything! Probably a hoax. No WP:RS that even mention his name, let alone give in-depth coverage. Bigger digger (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And per the HV Jain AfD and this one from 2005, can we have the article and all the redirects salted please? Bigger digger (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible? I kept seeing "horrible" and then noticed that it was "hon'ble" or something. Is this incipient dyslexia? If these photos aren't photoshoplifted and are indeed of him, might this fellow have some minor notability for celeb handshaking? -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha! As a politician he would be "honourable", hence the contraction. "Horrible" is more accurate though. If you write WP:Handshakes confer notability, I'll try and find sources that support the photographic evidence... ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Honourable' is a standard title for certain politicians and lesser nobility in the UK. It's always abbreviated to 'Hon'. I must confess to reading this new-to-me version as 'horrible' at first. As to handshakes and such, it's quite possible to be a very minor speaker at something, or to simply BS one's way in, and get photographed. It is also marvellous what they do with Photoshop these days. (They, not me. I've got it and simply can't understand it.) Peridon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these reasons and those in the Harsh Vardhan AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another load of unreliable refs. Mind you, one or two at a quick (and weary...) glance might show the existence of someone of this name. (There is also a judge by the name, but he was born long before 1940.) Will look again when I wake up... Peridon (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query Has anyone looked at the photo? It appears to be passport photo size and possibly scanned from somewhere. Why is he in uniform? "Mr Jain started as a Civil Engineer, employee in Indian Military Engineering Services" - can anyone identify the uniform and ribbons? He only was in this service about two years according to the article. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Jain was appointed as Honorary "Commanding Officer" Civil Defence, India. First read the article and then comment, I think you people only know how to talk and point the things.

WHAT IS HONORARY DO YOU KNOW ?

Don't jusk put your nose here and there and talk shit everywhere you want.

To reach at this level is unimaginable by you lads OK.

HARRYMAGIC (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These editors are trying to help! Bigger digger (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We see that, and with this honour we would expect some announcement on the part of Civil Defence. Can you find somewhere where Civil Defence or the press announced this? It would go a long way towards establishing notability. -Addionne (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary means unpaid, or paid a nominal sum for legal reasons (something like 1 Re per month). In the case of a university degree, it means no course has been attended, but the degree is awarded based on outside actions. This is an honorary position - i.e. unpaid. (I used to be a lexicographer....) Peridon (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The uniform appears to be for the Home_Guard_(India), a paramilitary organization. You can see here some officers of the home guard - the colours and the hat appear to be the same. The article claims he holds the title of "Commanding Officer", Civil Defence in the infobox.

More Factfinding:

...Shri Kashmiri Lal Jain, Secretary - Rajya Sabha, Parliament of India early 1960s)...: rajyasabha.nic.in - the official site of the Parliament of India, has no mention of anyone by the name Shri Kashmiri Lal Jain or any combination of these names. They have a list and a short bio of all members since 1952.
...He is Fellow of Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (FRSA) England.... Here I think we are talking about the younger Jain - but http://royalsociety.org - the website for this society, maintains a record of all past and current fellows. No Jains are listed in this record.
Smt. Ganga Devi - Neither of the Indian legislative houses, Rajya Sabha or Lok Sabha have this person listed on their website.

-Addionne (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important note Anyone can be an FRSA for the cost of joining. FRS is a different matter. They are not the same organisation at all. The Royal Society is for Science; the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is for what it says. I don't doubt that he is entitled to use FRSA. I could be if I joined them and paid my fee. So could you. FRS is an important thing. (So is the unrelated RA - from the Royal Academy of Arts.) FRSA is anybody's to get. The link you checked is the Royal Society not the RSA which is at http://www.thersa.org/about-us and has 27,000 Fellows... Peridon (talk) 10:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC) ::::I'd better just add that the RSA is a totally legit organisation, and not some fancy titles-for-cash outfit. They used to run a commercial examination programme, but that's been merged with OCR now. The fees for fellowship are for funding projects, not for expensive cars, etc, as can be the case with a lot of titles and initials 'awarded' by numerous scam and fake outfits. Peridon (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, my mistake. I wonder if FRSA finds it a benefit to have that kind of accidental association? -Addionne (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used to confuse them before I had some involvement with RSA (and NVQ) exams. I would think they do benefit from it - at least, some of those joining up will expect to... Peridon (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exterminate (spoken in Dalek voice) for reasons amply explained above. Moreover, considering the degree to which his hagiographer has attended to the niceties of what the "sources" actually say, I doubt what he says about the copyright status of the photographs that are used -- which could be recycled in some article in some other language about the Jain lads. So if I were more familiar with the workings of Wikimedia Commons, I'd direct my flamethrower at the files there too. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, HARRYMAGIC has been blocked as a sockpuppet. DS (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and no !votes for delete. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eataly[edit]

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

No more indication of Notability beyond it opening a month ago failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Well, if Michael Bloomberg went out of his way to mention it favorably, then that counts for something, too. 50,000 square feet is also pretty big. I don't think this article is doing any harm to Wikipedia, either. It's in need of improvement, of course. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I added some addition more recent sources and reviews - it has only been open a month has been gaining considerable coverage and praise. There are many more sources that can be added, but wikipedia is not a one man job! Tduk (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article about a quite unusual type of business now has a good assortment of reliable sources showing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Month Old Business is Encyclopedic with only sources that mention it opening? forgive me if i think that bar is too low. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg story has 13 photos and goes on for about 17 paragraphs. The New York Magazine story is also quite detailed. Both emphasize unusual aspects of this business. These are far more than routine new business announcements, Resident Anthropologist. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Eataly is the subject of significant, substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources. Article could use expansion and better reference formattting, but those are matters for tagging, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super Duper Strong Keep per Cullen328 and Dravecky. The article could be improved, but the subject is sufficiently notable to retain.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to expand the article some -- Eataly in New York is a spinoff of the original Eataly in Turin (See Eataly on Italian wikipedia [6]) which has also received massive coverage.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeebus, there are so many articles about Eataly out there I am dumbfounded. It really is a chain, though NY branch had additional partners. The Atlantic even called Eataly "the Supermarket of the Future" in 2007[7]. Changing my !vote to Super-duper Strong Keep.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if anyone wants to improve on the article, focus on the business angle -- what it says about high-end retailing, branding and the brilliance of their rollout (I received an email from a food-obsessed and rich Indonesian friend that told me he was planning a trip to new york to visit this dump). I suspect it will all go belly up in a few years, and be looked at in business school classes, but i digress.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the cites I have added would allow for the type of expansion you suggest. It sounds like the next step up from Dean & Deluca, which seems to have hung on ok.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nom per discover of being an internatinal chain The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill C-215[edit]

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

This is an article about a failed piece of proposed legislation. It did not receive consensus and was therefore not enacted. The article's name is also ambiguous; "Bill C-215" has been used several times when proposed legislation has been introduced. (see this link, for an example from 2005.) PK T(alk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reason to keep this, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is for deletion on the basis that the subject fails the relevant inclusion guidelines. The consensus in respect of the coverage presented is that (a) it does not establish notability and (b) is related only to one event. Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Bennett[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Disputer said there were lots of google hits, however most if not all of the google hits I have looked at are trivial coverage and not enough to establish notability. He is a non-notable amateur hockey player who has yet to play professionally or meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Players at this level are routinely deleted. DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, no assertion of notability. Reso lute 17:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage exists, for example Draft prospect Bennett has bright future (NHL.COM) or Rhode Islanders Bennett, Deblois expected to be picked in NHL draft (Providence Journal) or Mac Bennett picked by Canadiens (Providence Journal) VER Tott 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of which center around the draft which means it is a case of WP:BLP1E. Flash in the pan news stories are not enough to establish notability. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable amateur ice hockey player, and even under the overly generous inclusion policy of WP:NHOCKEY, he doesn't qualify for an exemption to WP:N. The sources cited are some local interest mentions and an nhl.com look at the draft prospects. Nothing here that sets him apart from any other player who has been drafted. Mandsford 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable amateur player. Third round draft pick. Has not played one second of professional hockey. --Smashville^talk 20:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search for his name and the word "hockey" show ample results. [8] Click on the first result, and you'll see an entire article dedicated to him in detail, not just a brief mention of the draft. [9] Dream Focus 04:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article that was written because he was drafted. Which still falls under the BLP1E. Without the event the article wouldn't have been written. Of those 88 ghits none are anything other than a passing mention (ie routine coverage) or a story stemming from his drafting, which is a flash in the pan news event. So still a case of BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage of his drafting falls under WP:BLP1E. Let's wait until he actually plays some pro hockey. SnottyWong ^chat 00:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that even the "1E" isn't that notable. He got drafted. So did 210 other people that week. Like graduating from Harvard, it's an accomplishment, but not the basis for an article. Mandsford 01:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the notability criteria required. The article for this player may be recreated after he has played his first NHL game, or otherwise after he meets the inclusion criteria per WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Dolovis (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer above; Does not satisfy WP:NHOCKEY and GNG. These plentiful articles that exist on google are not apparent in the article nor the ones indicated do i feel show GNG (ie BLP1E). Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Mohammed bin Faisal I bin Al Hussein El-Hashemite[edit]

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

This article was PRODded in 2008 with the reason "Probable hoax, no mention of a second son for King Faisal I of Iraq in genealogies on the Iraqi Royal Family", and deleted. Undeletion has been requested by an IP, so I have restored it and bring it here. I have found nothing online that did not appear to be a Wikipedia mirror. The official Jordan government page on the Hashemite Royal Family shows that King Faisal I had only one son, Ghazi. The only link in the article goes to an organization called "Royal Academy of Science International Trust" which appears to be real and claims to have been founded by Prince Mohammed; but per WP:V we should not keep this without a reliable source for the claim that Faisal I had a second son. The SPA author also created articles about the Prince's son (PRODded) and daughter (deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Nisreen El-Hashemite, where other evidence is cited that Faisal I had only one son). JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I see no evidence that convinces me this is for real. Kansan (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the corresponding page on the Arabic Wikipedia has been deleted, no reason stated. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a source from the Royal Academy of Science International Trust that he apparently founded? See here. So, he appears to be real? I'm just not sure. There's three possibilities here. First, this, including the RASIT website, is all a hoax. Or, there just hasn't been any news about this guy ever really published anywhere. Or, there has purposefully never been any info on this guy published because it is a cover-up by some sort of group or government. Silver seren^C 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read all of the nom's statement, apparently. :P Silver seren^C 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to enough about RASIT to suggest that it's real: the question is, was the guy who founded it a son of King Faisal, which is the article's principal claim? JohnCD (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends on whether you feel that RASIT is trustworthy in its claim then, doesn't it? Silver seren^C 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its is not independent of the founder, is it?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have an interest in a royal founder, so that they can put "Royal" in their title; I certainly would not regard them, unsupported, as a reliable enough source to counter the Jordanian one above, plus [10], [11], [12] etc. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actually this is was reposted after the prod and deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed bin Faisal I where also the AfDs for the two mentioned sons are linked. Right now we don't have anything to go on with, so I'd suggest to tag this as speedy and refer anybody claiming this to userspace draft and DRV. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, better to hash this out thoroughly. Nevertheless the previously deleted article already mentioned RASIT as well, but without link to a statement. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The NGO exists. I can reference it to more than just its own website. The person who founded it does appear to style himself as Prince Mohammed bin Faisal I bin Al Hussein El-Hashemite. His sons and daughter exist; most have little attributed to them, but his daughter works for the NGO and is quoted in third-party sources as a spokesperson at times. However, there's not enough there to make a biography on any of these people. If the founder of this NGO was in fact the son of King Faisal I, and pretender to the throne of the Kingdom of Iraq, then there would be no question about notability. But I can't confirm that at all. Not only would I treat the Jordanian government family tree as definitive, absent compelling contradictory evidence, but multiple sources identify King Ghazi as the only son of King Faisal. These include several books (Google Books search for "only son of King Faisal" is productive) and journal articles, including this Middle East Policy article ("The death of King Faisal I in September 1933 and the succession of Ghazi, his only son, to the throne signaled this new period in Iraqi politics."). I'm at a loss to explain the claims made by the NGO's founder (you'd think someone would have noticed and said something one way or the other...), but unless a great many highly reputable sources are wrong, they cannot be accurate. I don't think we have any choice but deletion unless there's more information forthcoming. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no shortage of sources discussing the line of succession of the Royal House of Iraq. In 1958, following the death of King Faisal II, that title in pretense was uniformly considered to have passed to Prince Zeid bin Hussein. According to the November 1943 Iraqi constitution, agnatic heirs of King Hussein of Hejaz would only become eligible for succession to the Iraqi throne in the case of the extinction of the agnatic line of King Faisal I. Following Zeid's death in 1970, the title in pretense passed to his son Ra'ad bin Zeid (notwithstanding a completing claim by Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, also descended from Hussein of Hejaz, but not via the male line), as confirmed by the government of Jordan. Regardless, neither Zeid nor Ra'ad nor Ali would have had any claim if there was a living second son of King Faisal I. It's been over 50 years since the death of King Faisal II; I'm pretty sure they would have noticed by now. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Ghazi died in 1939, Faisal II was only three years old; if there had been a living brother of Ghazi, as the young King's uncle and nearest male relative, he would surely have been Regent and been in the history books for that reason; but the Regent was actually 'Abd al-Ilah, a cousin of Ghazi. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as hoax. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are absolutely no reliable sources, maybe even a hoax. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angouleme archeology and history museum, Société archéologique et historique de la Charente[edit]

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

I am proposing this for deletion. It has been at the bottom of the unpatrolled list for 30 days and if nothing is done it will tacitly default to keep. This is a copyvio through translation from the French of various blocks of texts taken from http://limousin-grandmont.com/cariboost1/index.htm. What the bibliographical sources in the footnotes contain, w have no way of knowing, and the links to the maps are not relevant. A few sentences in the lead have been taken and translated from the fr.Wiki article. The creator /translator of the article may have a COI. Kudpung (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I couldn't find any reliable sources with this title. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find any with this incorrectly formatted title. You will find them with the correct title Société archéologique et historique de la Charente. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakshade (talk • contribs)

Delete as a copyvio. If this museum is notable, someone will eventually recreate the article without using translated non-free content. SnottyWong ^chatter 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion Books[edit]

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

Notability is very tenuous. None of the books published by this organization appear to be notable; ergo, the company likely is not notable either. A quick Google search ([13]) shows that the only sources that have written about this company are its own official website (of course) as well as several FRINGE websites, such as that of Israel Shamir. None of the sources appear to be reliable, or sufficient to establish notability. Neither the Southern Poverty Law Center nor the Anti-Defamation League has commented on the subject, nor have any mainstream news outlets. Anti-Semitic, yes. Notable, no. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The secondary sources do not even mention the company. -Steve Dufour (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jess C Scott[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Self-published author of questionable notability. Provided sources are mainly blogs. No significant coverage (Twitter mentions are not significant coverage) from independent third-party reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Greetings--I would like to request help/advice for independent authors to establish notability. Would one or two notices in notable publications be sufficient? Before that is established, I believe Ms. Scott has established some level of notability so far, within the independent writing/publishing sphere. Re: "Publetariat.com", which publishes "the most valuable content from the web for indie authors and small imprints"--this is a citation of Ms. Scott's contributions to the burgeoning field of independent writing/publishing. Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)? Elfpunk (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: P.S. The very concept and model of Wikipedia itself is based on self-publishing--I think this should be taken into consideration, with regards to subjects or articles that have to do with self-publishing in the digital era. Elfpunk (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Should a person be not-notable, because they are not mainstream enough to be extensively covered by mainstream, established media outlets (for the time being)?" 'Fraid so. If you can show reliable sources to indicate wider spread coverage, maybe, As it stands, the refs list isn't worth tuppence. Have a look at WP:RS to see what is required. As to Wikipedia, it's self-publishing - in a way. It is moderated and supervised by thousands of people, whereas self-publishing of books is governed solely by the funds available. Self-published books can become notable - or be taken up by the 'mainstream' publishers - but it's usually a long-term process or a wild exception. There's no evidence here of either. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I have no opinion about this specific article and nomination, perhaps it is time to begin asking ourselves in this ebook era whether notability guidelines need to be adjusted for self-publishing ebook authors. Specifically, might it not be more reasonable to look at these things according to some sort of quantitative-output parameters rather than relying upon "significant coverage" in the ever-less-relevant mainstream media? This applies for both books and music and even to some extent to indie filmmaking. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that the existing Notability Guidelines are looking long in the tooth... Carrite 20:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a similar comment a while back re WP:MUSIC, discussing a group that had no records but had a song with 1 million+ YouTube hits. The response was more or less that people weren't willing to add YouTube hits to the WP:MUSIC notability markers, at least not yet. And a better case could be made for music, where album sales are plummeting and the Billboard album charts don't mean much anymore. Also, views or downloads (if free) can be gamed, and there isn't a reliable third-party source that counts these things, I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appreciate the info + comments. I would make a suggestion for notability guidelines to be looked at (with regards to self-publishing authors, who can also publish in hardcopy via Print-on-Demand systems), if I knew who to contact / where to post the suggestion. As an aspiring published author, I have observed the ways and means of the publishing industry for some time. For example, book publicists:

"work with editors at newspapers, magazines, and websites to obtain positive reviews and create feature coverage for [an author's] book" [14].

There is no way to determine which author (traditionally published, or not) has attained credibility in this way, unless they make a statement. Is this truly credible, in a 3rd party neutral kind of way, when the credibility from the source could have been purchased/bought? Elfpunk (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SPS and WP:GNG. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 21:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While self-published works can be notable, they usually are not. There is no indication that this author and his works are exceptions. Independent, reliable sources indicating notability are needed, and so far not provided, for that. Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Greetings--I've contacted the author. She might be able to score a feature on "new media literature" on Salon.com (she has "some contacts who might be able to help her out"). I'll keep a lookout if/when the feature appears, as I believe that is a reliable source indicating some notability. Maybe she could use that as leverage to get the minimum multiple articles/reviews from non-self-published sources. Elfpunk (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found zero hits on gnews. All references are to SPS'es. Fail WP:AUTHOR which requires at a minimum "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Until such references exist the article should be and remain deleted. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above; no news hits, no reliable sources, no pass on GNG or WP:AUTHOR. That being said, if anyone wants to overhaul WP:BIO to include self-published sources, I commend them to the appropriate talk pages to discuss the same and lobby for consensus to reflect their POV. Until that happens, we'll have to go with the current requirements of WP:RS. Ravenswing 19:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello Ravenswing, thanks for mentioning about WP:BIO to include self-published sources / reflection of POV. I'll gather my thoughts on the existing notability guidelines for self-publishing book authors, before lobbying for consensus on the WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR talk page. Elfpunk (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti (2010 film)[edit]

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

Fails as per Future Films criteria of WP:FILMS Mspraveen (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Filming has begun. So keep per WP:NFF. Any NTR JR telugu film would get a statewide release, so this is not an obscure prodcution.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning of User:Sodabottle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches wins list[edit]

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

There already exists a more comprehensive article, List of college men's basketball coaches with 600 wins, which includes not only Division I head coaches but also all NCAA levels' coaches with at least 600 wins. The article I'm nominating is basically a subset of it, rendering it obsolete. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to a somewhat older and much better article. The title is too long to make a redirect. Mandsford 19:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jerome Grandsire and Emmanual Marty and redirect Funpause to Big Fish Games. –MuZemike 00:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Grandsire[edit]

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

This article fails to provide any indication of notability, nor any supporting references. Having worked at a company with best-selling games, unfortunately, is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

- Addionne (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Addionne (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two bios and redirect Funpause to Big Fish Games. I could not find sufficient reliable sources sources for Gransire or Marty, and only press releases for the company. Marasmusine (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two bios and redirect per Marasmusine --Teancum (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A. A. Alvarez[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Books are self-published ("A. A. Alvarez Publishing"). Rd232 ^talk 15:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a self-published author might be fine if your books are still notable, however this is not the case here. Fails to establish any notability based on any guideline, especially the one that matters here. -Addionne (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of a Nomad[edit]

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

Self-published book ("A A. Alvarez Publishing"); major contributor to this and A. A. Alvarez appears to be the author. Rd232 ^talk 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I think being self-published books can be notable, in this case I'm not so sure. A vast majority of the reviews seem to either be user-reviews or places that are designed for authors to actually review their own books. I could find no independent sources after a quick search. And though it's possible that digging deeper might reveal some, if the author (which I think is a reasonable assumption in this case) can't locate any news sources or press, it's a good chance that none exist. -Addionne (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established by coverage in secondary sources, although it looks like a good book. It would be better to start with an article on the author. -Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just double checked. There is an article on the author, but it's up for deletion too. Anyway he should keep trying. If you can sell the movie rights then WP will be all over it. -Steve Dufour (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CopyVio, no evidence of suitable cc license Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Festival[edit]

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

With a prize pot of £100,000 and final events taking place at the O2 Arena, this festival should be more notable, but apparently it isn't. Only one significant result in gnews: a local paper covering this year's winner (along the lines of "home town band makes good"). All provided references are from primary sources (the festival's own website and its MySpace page). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment page was tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio while I was completing this nomination. Even if Copyvio can be addressed, I doubt that notability can be established. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this article was uploaded today and I am unsure why exactly it is being marked for deletion. It seems the point of view of Dan61 is that a search on gnews is the way to determine whether an article should stay up. Is this correct? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.3.220 (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article is marked for deletion for two reasons:

It is a direct copy of the text at http://surfacefestival.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/surface-festival-moves-forward-into-2011/, which makes it a copyright violation.
The Surface Festival does not seem to have received any significant coverage in reliable sources (as indicated by a lack of results when using the Google News search engine on the phrase "Surface Festival") which is the basic criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fair enough. The blog is owned by the contributor, so it's not a copyright issue. If you Google "Surface Festival" there are lots of worthy news stories on blogs etc, however, if you feel that the Festival is not worthy of Wiki and does not fit your criterion please delete as appropriate. However, we would be sad to see it go :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Just because someone says that "I own that content so there is no copyright" that doesn't make it so. Since Wikipedia accounts are essentially anonymous, there is no way to verify that the person is telling the truth. There are ways to donate copyrighted material, but that will not address the notability issue. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, as there is no editorial fact-checking process. Lack of coverage in any legitimate media is problematic for a festival that purports to be so extensive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, The reason there is not much out there in terms of “news” is because the Surface Festival launched on 1st October 2010. Therefore it has only been around for 19 days. In 2011 the Festival claims 500 shows, 24 global sponsors, 14 cities across the U.K. and Europe and £100,000 of prizes to be won at the o2 in London. Over the coming months one will see major articles about the event in key publications that are relevant to the music industry. The news stories about this event will grow substantively in the coming months. May I suggest to you therefore that it would be wise to keep the article and to reassess its suitability in a month or so.

In respect of the copyrighted material, I completely agree with you that it is impossible to ascertain whether permission has been granted unless proof is given. Therefore I can arrange for an email from Surface Festival to be sent tomorrow to Wiki confirming permission for the material to be used. If a reference is required on the page we can add that too. Please advise on the best course of action. Thanks for your time and assistance in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the festival has just launched, it is probably not yet notable, although it may become so. Claims that the organizers make about the possibilities of this festival are not reliable sources. It could well be that the first venue turns out so badly that all of the sponsors pull out and the festival will die there. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the presumed future notability of an event cannot be used to justify its coverage in Wikipedia. As for the copyright issues, you can pursue that if you wish, but given the notability issues (or lack thereof), it may not be worth your efforts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is complete nonsense and of course will not happen. Clearly the article will be removed, therefore please feel free to remove the article as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "clear" about the outcome of this discussion. So far only two users have chimed in. More input from other users is needed to reach consensus. There may well be a lot of users who disagree with me. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we are waiting on the outcome can we remove the massive red box at the top of the article which suggests the page is about to be deleted. It looks messy and ruins the article. If this cannot be done please remove the article, or the original poster (my collegue) can remove it tommorow when she gets into the office, if that helps. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.174.235 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Articles for deletion notice cannot be removed until this discussion is concluded. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we will remove the artical tommorow. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.136.229 (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Vardhan Jain[edit]

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

Self-promotional autobiography, doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO in any case. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO; tone of article is highly WP:PROMO; the few references that actually support the claims made don't appear to be WP:Reliable sources. For example, claims of being an "Emissary for many Countries" is referenced by a listing on www.consul.cc, "The Consular Chamber of Commerce", a "who's who" type pay-per-listing site. Top Jim (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Article was first made by name HV Jain', but the administrators changed it to Harsh Vardhan Jain'

Kindly do the needful

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

Article is been written for other person then how can it be a self promo.

It is been requested to kindly again review the matter of deletion please, as all necessary changes has been done accordingly. Deletion of words & phrases like - "Emissary for many Countries" , "The Consular Chamber of Commerce".

But as a matter of fact Consul.cc is a government site which states the status for Ambassoadors, Diplomats etc, But as administrators doesnot wish that such info, so it is been deleted accordingly.

As I would request you to contact User:Deb as a lot of help and contribution was done in the article, Kindly see the last Article before deletion please, so that the contribution can be seen there, and a guidance was given to the wikipedia new users.

It is been requested kindly see that since 6 - 8 weeks no problem was associated with article deletion etc, and no prior notice was given regarding the deletion of the article, today only in 5 - 10 mins all articles were deleted.

It is been requested to serve a notice before hand and a guidance to review & for correction of Article.

It is been requested that kindly see that how much time & efforts a person does for updation, maintaining, etc for an Article. But in last without any mistake it gets deleted, Hours & Hours are there inputed in writing a good Article.

It is been requested that the Article has been in total Guidelines of wikipedia including references & Conflict of Interest, as all the prior mistakes were pointed by User:Deb, and accordingly all the corrections were done long time back.

It is a request to kindly re-add the Article which was deleted today, as that was prepared with all guidelines & efforts, as in history it can be seen easily.

Kindly review the History for last 45 days for the article Harsh Vardhan Jain, and if in last 45 days if anytime a deletion post has been posted to the article then kindly delete it, otherwise please re-add the article.

Looking forward & kind request for addition of the Article.

Regards,HARRYMAGIC (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Busy lad. RSA and ROSL are pay to join - you too could become an FRSA quite easily. As to other things - extremely promotional tone. I got told off once for using the word 'vanity', so I won't call this a vanity page. It looks like another item in a collection of everywhere you can get your name, starting (alphabetically) with aboutus. "Presently Mr Jain is working actively with the organizations in India, United Kingdom, Middle East, Mauritius, Eastern Europe and in Central African Continent. Considered amongst one of the Liaison man and Consultants throughout the Globe. he is currently engaged in brokerage, trading and consultancy activities of Fertilizer, Chemicals, Iron & Steel, Natural Gas, Defence products, Oil & Petroleum and all related products & its derivatives." - I take this to mean he buys and sells things. In 11 Gpages (after minusing a mathematician of the same name and ignoring a biologist too), I couldn't find a reliable reference. Everything like twitter and blogs, yes. No emissaries or brokers. Some of the stuff is probably other people of the same name (I suffer from the same problem outside...), but there is still a lack. With a rewrite and removal of peacock phrases, and solid references (see Top Jim's post above), I would have no objection to Mr Jain having an article and have nothing whatever against him personally (never even heard of him before this...), but notability must be shown and referenced properly. Peridon (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see-

As the Article was first made by name HV Jain, but the administrators changed it to Harsh Vardhan Jain

Kindly do the needful Find sources:

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

HARRYMAGIC (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. This article has vast sources, virtually none of which are relevant to the actual subject, and all fail to assert any kind of notability under WP:BIO. - Addionne (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many Viewers Not to Delete, Kindly see that in within 2 - 3 weeks the Article has been viewed by approx 2000 viewers, It may relate the positive response for the Article. And if there were any problem or wrong info supplied then it would have been in notice long back, Thus it is requested to kindly add the Article which was deleted earlier.122.162.81.180 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) — 122.162.81.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia doesn't operate by popularity polls or viewer counts. By the way, you may have found a feature I haven't. How do you know how many people have viewed the article? I use the old format but I don't remember that feature when I tried the new one. Peridon (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not knowing that Wikipedia doesnot want popular Articles, which will increase the use of Wikipedia by common people.

But I think that if 00.00001% contribution I do in Wikipedia Articles - It will lead in increase of popularity of Wikipedia in Common people.

ThanksHARRYMAGIC (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax (well, attempt to hoodwink wikipedia, not sure on that speedy category!) - going through the sources now, the ones I have looked at so far do not mention him at all. They are mis-titled to suggest he is mentioned. Look at this source apparently used to confirm he owns the rights to the East India Company it's a comment on the news item that says someone else entirely owns these rights, and the comments then link back to wp for evidence. AAaaarrrgghhh! Bigger digger (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More rubbish - Not come across something like this before, amazing how annoyed it makes you! www.jaingroupofcompanies.com is registered to an address in Wembley. That's unexpected for a company established in India 40-odd alleged years ago. And even if it's legit, there's a major copyvio issue there. Bigger digger (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - More Sourcing to a Blackburn Rovers Fan Forum, probably as a result of some other suggestiveness Harrymagic sneaked in there. Bigger digger (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Getting boring... Sources at Leicester Council, House of Commons and Tribune India, none of which contain the word "Jain". The next time I post will be to show the article stripped of all these non-sources. Bigger digger (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting again! - Wow, so much effort has gone into this. http://www.jaingroupofcompanies.com/org.html lists Emirates Petroleum PLC as one of its companies. That company is registered at an address (5 Jupiter House, Calleva PArk, Aldermarston) that you can buy (scroll down a bit). Bizarrely, a lot of the photos seem to be of the people they purport to be, so maybe they're also good with photoshop? So odd. Diff from start to finish, thanks to TopJim, who clearly knows what he's doing! Bigger digger (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for doing the research this time around. The last AFD discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harsh Jain. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I'll add a salt to my vote as well then - all the redirects and the previous AfD nom too. Bigger digger (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per above deletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 07:31, 20 October 2010
Delete as hoax. (Kudos to Bigger Digger for rooting it out.) Considering recreation strongly recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mere smoke and mirrors. -- Hoary (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one Bigger Digger.... I wondered but hadn't time to go in so far. Peridon (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow! -- Hoary (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, HARRYMAGIC has been blocked as a sock. DS (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A sock of HVJAIN no less! Bigger digger (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation The Game[edit]

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

Non-notable browser-based computer game. Whilst no doubt a fun game, it's developed by a redlinked developer, has had no mentions in the press that I can find, and makes no claim to notability in the article itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete. I have to agree, despite my love of the Foundation series, this article does nothing to assert notability of the game - and I have been unable to find references other than a directory listing of the game, as well the official website. -Addionne (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
userfy Well, since this isn't a big budget game with hundreds of thousands of players, I can't argue. There are also some french forums which talk about the game [[15]]. What is the exact criteria for notability? Elryacko (currently away from my home computer) 207.233.32.18 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WEB has the notability criteria for websites. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Addionne (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: 7[edit]

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

This page has no information and no references - and though I am sure the game will come out, this article would invariably have to be completely rewritten and renamed. It is a prime example of using Wikipedia as a Crystal Ball, and gives the impression of having been written for promotional reasons. I am reluctantly putting it here instead of nominating for speedy deletion, which is where my instinct would have me put it. -Addionne (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crystal ball. Notability has not been established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cindamuse (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal-balling; if the only thing to say about a subject is *shrug* then it doesn't need an article. Someone another 16:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Addionne (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the release is verifiable a redirection to the series article might be a good idea.--76.66.182.164 (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would normally suggest a redirect, per WP:PRODUCT, but in this case we don't even know the game's title, so not a viable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for two weeks for the following reasons:
- According to to this (Oct 12) interview from the Mystery Case Files facebook page there is a game "currently in development" although it could be in its early stages.
- In this thread on the Big Fish Games forum (created two days ago for discussion about MCF7) the moderators say that the website is not up to date.
- There have been clues about a continuation to the Return to Ravenhearst storyline in a previous game.

I think the best thing to do is wait for two weeks to see if any new information appears. George (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Crystal ball and no proof of notability. Lifetime faker (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Taylor (musician)[edit]

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

Does not appear notable as it is, even though he has worked with some who apparently are. Another indicator of lack of notability (though by no means policy-related or fool proof) is that the article was not created until the date of this person's death. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? He played on 5 Grammy nominated albums, and was one of the most well respected side men in the business. To be notable is not just to be famous. Some of the best musicians in the world are mostly sidemen. His contributions to a great number of blues albums is definitely a mark of notoriety. He was an arranger, composer, musician and author. He was a teacher. Through all those things, he impacted a number of people. Again, he was continually asked to perform and record with the biggest names in the blues industry. That's notable. The current list of recording credits is nowhere near complete, he has played on hundreds of records, and has toured with the best blues musicians in the world.

Speedy Delete Musician with no assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 17:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article notes how subject was influential in teaching musical technique in varied music genres. Also identifies notable contributions to recordings as performer. --PJL IV (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject published three books through Hal Leonard, ISBNs have been included - this follows notability criteria.Paradise coyote (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've never satisfactorily worked out how to cope with session musicians who have performed on numerous high-profile projects, but have only minimal coverage specifically about them. In this case, I think there is evidence enough of notability; I am particularly persauded by Paradise Coyote's argument. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piecewise regression analysis[edit]

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

A single-source article where the main author fails to follow Wikipedia guidelines in many respects, despite discussion on Talk page. While the article has multiple references, the topic is about some difference from standard procedures, where there is only a single source for this idea, and where this idea is not actually explained. There are many other problems. My suggestion is Userfy rather than deletion, but there seem many hurdles to cross before this article could be made acceptable. Melcombe (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To All[edit]

As Melcombe said, this article is from a single soruce. Right, since so far there is only one paper in a conference proceedings (Note: please see Correction below ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)). However, the ideas as well as the analytical logic of the new method are right. The current ones take an optimization to determine the threshold as well as the expectation of piecewise models. This is wrong. Why? The segmented variabel X, the combined residuals R of all piecewise models and the matrix M of the piecewise regression coefficients are all random variables in the data iteration for searching the unknown threshold. How can we use the min(R) to determine the expectation of the M, E(M)? Is the correspondence between the min(R) and the E(M) a certain correspondence? The answer is NOT. It is a random correspondence. What corresponds to the E(M) is the E(R) but not the min(R). Thus, the current methods are theoretically incorrect in Mathematics!!![reply]

The second serious mistake is the assumption of the enforced continuity. This is not a statistical hypothesis, no one can assume the continuity in a random space if the unknown threshold(s) exist in it. In a staitstical point of view, we need a probabilistic inference for the continuity.

Since the optimization is wrong, and the continuity cannnot be enforcedly assumed, we cannot take the current methods to estimate the unknown thresholds. We must find another way.

No one has ever doubted the current methods. Ligong Chen is the first and the only one.

I strongly urge you to retain these new ideas so that more and more people could have an opportunity to realize the mistakes in the current system. However if you think that this article violate the wiki rules due to some original researches, I can eliminate the part of "Preperation of Concepts".

I have invited many people to discuss the new analytical logic and the new method. Actually the new method had been discussed with many statisticians at the two conferences (2007 JSM and 2009 JSM), no one could deny it. I believe that more and more people will accept it.

Due to my English writing skill is poor, I wish someone could help it and clean up all linguistic issues.

Anyway, please give me a last notice before you delete this article from the wikipedia if you insist to delete it. I would like to make a copy before the deletion.

Thanks a lot! ----Yuanfangdelang (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Bennett (actress)[edit]

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

New article on an actress that doesn't improve on the one deleted after the previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorna Bennett (actor)). Similar but not identical to the deleted article so wasn't a G4, so I prodded it but the prod was removed, so bringing it here. It's a shame that we have to waste more time discussing this but... Michig (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Changing the name shouldn't change the result. The only source that might even remotely approach reliability is IMDB, and that was adequately discussed on the last AFD. Kansan (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A career of barely-credited bit parts does not WP:ENTERTAINER or the GNG pass. Nor, as does the anon IP above, do I presume that someone can only seek to apply Wikipedia rules and guidelines through Some Hidden Agenda. Some WP:AGF, please. Ravenswing 16:59, 12
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is vastly different, what about all the new citations and references? How can someone be "barely credited" anyway? You're either credited or not, and from what I've read the vast majority of her roles have been lead, or guest anyway. That just seems spiteful to write that. People don't appear to have looked at the new entry and just jumped to assumptions. From the article I read I can see Lorna Bennett is a busy actress, a playwright who has had professional productions of her work put on, has produced a film with some relatively big names involved AND has directed in the West End, how is none of this notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.198.73 (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC) — 78.144.198.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Which ones are significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions? Any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I looked but couldn't find any. Edgepedia (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: The "vast majority of her roles have been lead?" Really? "Female Teacher?" "Mother?" "Anne Campbell's PA?" "Girl In Car?" She was a minor character in both her Doctors appearances, she was an uncredited extra in her Cry Wolf appearance, and everything else was an indie film. Indeed, the two SPAs pushing Ms. Bennett have put in a blizzard of references, but not a single one of them qualifies under WP:RS; without exception, the most they do is name the subject in a list. Not a single one, as WP:RS requires, discusses the subject "in significant detail" (or, indeed, in any detail at all) and there's a dearth of "reliable, independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy." A number of them are user-created. The SPAs would be better off expending their considerable energy in reviewing WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:ENTERTAINER, with an eye towards telling us which criteria of the latter the subject meets and why. Ravenswing 18:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am saddened to read the above, it seems to me to be against the very tenets of WP. Lorna Bennett is an actress, all the information contained on her page is verifiable (try LAMDA graduates list, Spotlight, cast lists the shows mentioned on imdb or the BBC website), why then does it need deleting? WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia providing "as much information as possible". Or is this about notoriety? Is WP now the arbiter of notoriety? How "famous" does one need to be to be considered? It seems to be a very silly rule if one can prove ones veracity but needs a few reporters to pen a some articles before WP will consider you worthy. If it's true it should stay in, therefore her page should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.234.202 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC) — 78.149.234.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 78.149.234.202 in answer to your question an actor has an article on wikipedia if there are are significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and or significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I've looked through the references provided but couldn't find anything. Have I missed something? Are there any significant reviews of her work? Edgepedia (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia may not be the arbiter of notoriety, but it (as applied by a consensus of its editors) is the arbiter of its own policies and guidelines. Rather than promote your private opinion as to what Wikipedia ought to be, I strongly encourage you to review WP:PILLAR, WP:NOT, WP:GNG and WP:BIO so you can gain an understanding as to how we do things. Good luck. Ravenswing 13:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for the links, after reading I must concede there are grounds for discussing the article, but as the rules themselves as stated are "not hard and fast" I hope it will be given a reprieve, as the grounds for deletion are down to the interpretation of "notable". All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whilhelm III (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC) — Whilhelm III (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established according to WP:ENT. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fails WP:GNG. While several references have been offered, they are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject. They are primarily publicity points for the projects in which she has been involved. Notability not established at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmm...four editors in favour of deletion, one SPA/sock wanting it to stay - do we really need to continue discussing this?--Michig (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete Make that five. Fails WP:GNG Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The blizzard of references only establish that she is a working actress. The distinct lack of significant coverage indicates she does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) there isn't really a policy-based reason to delete the article. Secret ^account 22:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Spangenberg[edit]

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

Earlier AfDs related to article:

Articles for deletion/Dan Blonsky

Articles for deletion/Joe Trela

Articles for deletion/Bob House

Articles for deletion/Kim Hunt (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Bernie Cullen

Articles for deletion/Ed Toutant

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

"Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
"It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
"Winning [$xx,000] or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
"Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frank's notoriety for decades on the NYC subway beat as the Jeopardy!-winning transit cop, along with his distinguishing height, trademark mustache and soft-spoken manner made him one of the most memorable Jeopardy! contestants. His name frequently comes up on the show as one of the show's greats. His records were longstanding. He was one of the few champions chosen to be highlighted in a "where-are-they-now?"-type "Champion Update" interlude [16] on the Jeopardy! program. Your quotations above give unfair treatment to the subject as they give the impression that all he did was win money. That's not what fixed him in the minds of so many, and the same can be said of several other of your nominations. Robert K S (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Appearing on a game show and being remembered for it by your coworkers does not equate to meeting notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. His ("memorable") physical characteristics are not part of the article and should not be used as a factor for determining whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines (and wouldn't be a valid argument, anyway). Appearing on a "where are they now" video on the show's official site also does not elevate the subject's status to meet notability standards here. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Gameshow Trivia. Are we going to start memorializing lottery winners, too? —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.

Revisiting this after seeing the other Jeopardy winner pages, I note one NY Post cite, which I think can be dismissed under the aegis of NOT NEWS. —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.

Incidentally, Wikipedia does treat (not "memorialize") certain most notable lottery winners. Abraham Shakespeare is a significant example. I don't think it's too much to ask for some of the most noteworthy game show winners to be similarly treated. We are not talking about dozens of individuals. We are talking about only the most significant record-holders, or those people who are otherwise notable in other fields. Robert K S (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spangenberg is commonly considered a Jeopardy legend. At least one source cited in the article explicitly describes him as such. This little bit from Bob Harris' book also attests to Spangenberg's importance to the show's history (although it's difficult to incorporate that into the article). BLP1E is not an issue, because Spangenberg participated in a whole bunch of Jeopardy tournaments over the years, on top of his original appearance. Zagalejo^^^ 05:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Zagalejo. Harris mentions Spangenberg multiple times throughout the book, including at least one mention of Spangenberg among the Jeopardy! staff. Second choice is to merge to List of Jeopardy! contestants. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned several times in Dupee's book, Harris's book, Vosburgh's book, and the Trebek/Barsocchini book. That's three different decades of published notability. 271828182 (talk) 18:49, 18 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, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage of several events after his initial appearance on the show so BLP1E does not apply. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP1E arguments ahve not been rebuted. Consensus to delete has been established. Courcelles 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Earlier AfDs related to article:

Articles for deletion/Dan Blonsky

Articles for deletion/Joe Trela

Articles for deletion/Bob House

Articles for deletion/Kim Hunt (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Bernie Cullen

Articles for deletion/Ed Toutant

Although the person received media coverage at the time of their appearance on a game show, there is no notability beyond the single event. Wikipedia:Recentism is factor, as there has been little/no coverage since the initial appearance on a game show. WP:BLP1E can also be applied.

Nomination follows reasons listed in other similar deletion discussions, including the following:

"Winning...on a game show does not strike me as meeting the threshold for notability, even if it leads to a couple of additional appearances down the road."
"It's a game show. It has winners. There are other game shows. They have winners. I don't think we need a directory of every successful game show contestant."
"Winning [$xx,000] or temporarily holding the winnings record do not establish notability."
"Clearly a figure of transient notability."

Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show and setting a record in a high school quiz bowl are not criteria that proves notability. Article also contains WP:OR about records he "is believed" to hold, such as "the longest ever 'real-time' champion since he taped his first show on December 14, 2004 and his last regular play show on July 9, 2005" Bulk of statistics in article are also unreferenced. Article contains anectodal mention of a hike the subject made across the US for charity, which again does not prove notability.

Article was nominated individually after initially being included in a bundeled AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator should withdraw the above nomination and re-nominate with remarks addressed to this individual article and its notability rather than a generalized cut-and-paste nomination which may falsely attribute quotations of anonymous other editors, out of context, to this nomination. Robert K S (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This nomination includes remarks directly addressed to the subject's notability ("Appearing on 22 episodes of a game show and setting a record in a high school quiz bowl are not criteria that proves notability. Article also contains WP:OR about records he "is believed" to hold, such as "the longest ever 'real-time' champion since he taped his first show on December 14, 2004 and his last regular play show on July 9, 2005" Bulk of statistics in article are also unreferenced. Article contains anectodal mention of a hike the subject made across the US for charity, which again does not prove notability.") The quotations from earlier AFDs were included because the similar rational and related discussion for their deletion apply to my nomination of this article for deletion. The similar structure of this AFD to other recent AFDs also applies because of the similar notability claims of those articles and the result of the earlier bundled AFD in which they were all included. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Gameshow Trivia. Are we going to start memorializing lottery winners, too? —Carrite, Oct. 11, 2010.
Move to David Madden's Jeopardy! appearance to satisfy WP:BLP1E (where subjects notable for one event should be covered in the event article) and rewrite article to fit the new title. The subject meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage in two newspapers: Daily Princetonian and New York Times. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Madden outside of his Jeopardy! appearance, though. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge multiple contestants who have no other coverage into a list article, such as List of notable Jeopardy! contestants. No reason for each person to have his or her own article, based on my brief review of the evidence, but these appear to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thus, if merged into a list, there's a clear potential for an FLC to come out of this. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not move it to David Madden's Jeopardy! appearance to turn it into an article about the event, which is how WP:BLP1E suggests resolving the issue when notability is demonstrated (as seen in the sources given in the article. (I would also be in favor of a merge to List of Jeopardy! champions, where notability is presumed as requisite for inclusion.) RJaguar3 | u | t 04:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - EDIT: That last link should have been List of Jeopardy! contestants to allow for the inclusion of notable contestants who didn't win their games. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Creating an article entitled "David Madden's Jeopardy! appearance" doesn't solve the problem, because the event itself has not received on-going coverage. The last sentence in WP:BLP1E says, "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." (Emphasis mine.) -- JTSchreiber (talk)
    - David's charity hike received persistent reliable coverage. Robert K S (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least table. He's in charge of the National History Bee later this year, which I suspect will generate some press. 271828182 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a basketball guy, so I'll liken this to an appropriate basketball analogy: An article exists called Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. Why? Because it was the highest, the top achievement of its kind. Shortly after Kobe Bryant scored 81 points, an article titled "Kobe Bryant's 81-point game" was created but was soundly !voted for either delete or redirect (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobe Bryant's 81-point game). This article is akin to Kobe's 81-point game: the second highest does not equal worthy of an article on its own. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:48, 15 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, -- Cirt (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that per WP:BIO1E it should be deleted. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a List of Jeopardy! record holders or something similar, where all those BLP1E contestants for which each event isn't quite notable on its own can be collectively merged, as JClemens points out.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E CTJF83 chat 21:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the second-highest winning contestant is sufficiently notable to deserve some kind of entry at least on the list of contestants list. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6.5 Jonson[edit]

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

Article's subject matter is not notable. No info save the possible authors own site. WP:FAILN The article appears to be speculative. The citations failed to provide any information regarding the subject of the article nor were germane regarding the subject matter discussed. The article looks good but fails because there is nothing to write about as there is no information in the the available regarding the subject. Several claims are made, most unlikely none likely to be substantiated.

The cartridge is a project that has been in the works for some years. It is likely a pet project by Jonson vis a vis Jonson Arms. Apart from Jonson Arms no one seems too interested to discuss the topic or write about it.

Possible conflict of interest WP:COI

Possible sockpuppetry/meat puppetry

Please check Talk:7.62 Jonson regarding the latter two issues. DeusImperator (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another example of someone's personal project. Did a nice job on layout, but serious POV issues and nothing to establish notability, probably because there aren't any good sources. Also mostly just a cut and paste with 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:04, 5 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trout DeusImperator & Keep Seriously DeusImperator? Adding a few dozen citiation needed tags to an article? The proper procedure is to add one top banner mentioning that it has little or no citations. I'm sure in the amount of time you took to add all those tags, you could have found the top banner, shaved, ate lunch, and watched something intersting on TV. Your trout is in the mail. As for the article, I'm sure with one or two passes by someone who knows hunting, the article will be in just as good of shape as any of the thirty other articles on lesser used ammunition. Look at List of rifle cartridges, most have their own pages. The fact that I can find sources means I am voting for a keep. I just don't know enough about the topic to be a useful editor on the page. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the subject itself - 32 ((Citation needed)) for one screen of text is too much indeed. Was it worth the time? I don't care about the time wasted by the tagger, but he and people like him steal other editors' time. Editors have to take into account those who would happily tag any word, and effectively have to cite every word where one cite per paragraph would suffice. And then the readers complain about "a sea of footnotes". East of Borschov 09:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have attempted to clean this up. Where appropriate, I have given sections the Unreferenced Section template but in most cases each section had at least one reference anway so between these and the top banner, which I have also added, I think it's all covered. Hope that helps. As far as the article goes, I don't currently have an opinion as I don't know enough about rifle ammunition, or how it is usually dealt with on Wikipedia. I may do some research and come back if I change my view. --Korruski^Talk 11:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the difference between this and the other minor cartridges is that they actually have sources that talk about them, such as COTW, etc. This article has 4 references none of which mentions the cartridge even in passing. The basic notability problem is at issue here - this is a pet project cartridge, not a commercial cartridge or notable wildcat. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes many claims which are unsupported. The claims the contributor regarding any numeric values should be supported. There is no evidence of that anywhere. Further to that, what is the Johnson Factor? And how would someone know whether it complies with this Johnson Factor if no one knows what this Johnson Factor could be. And as for the cites no cite provided even relates to the cartridge. Also, what has the Delta L problem got to do with this cartridge? Red herrings? Most of the cites are for areas which made claims which cannot be substantiated or were over reaching. Sorry about the over zealous cites though.

The other thirty or so cartridge are listed and written about and some form of media. However, 6.5 Jonson is listed nowhere. it is not a notable cartridge.

Unsubstantiated claims which were claimed that should be verified:

It is a Benchrest cartridge or that it could be used as one: No evidence, pure speculation
Great cartridge for anything it is chosen to do: No evidence, pure speculation, peacock
It was inspired by three most important cartridge lines: First who says that those are the three most important cartridge lines? And who says this this cartridge is inspired by those cartridge lines?
perfected ballistic profile, designated parallactic precision: Huh? I have read many legal briefs and know hoey when I see it.
Several companies made cartridge clearly honoring Jonson Labs' earlier worK: Who says this? Which cartridges would this be?
one proprietary round uses the exact nomenclature designated: Which one is that? who says?
other manufacturers chose to contaminate the Jonson design: Who says that it got contaminate? What is the Jonson design?
without a 30 degree shoulder, no round could ever match the characteristics and accuracy of a PPC round: FOOTNOTES #1&#2 Footnoted article does not actually support this claim. So what do we have 2 footnotes supporting this? Anyone actually read the articles cited? In fact neither say ANYTHNG about a 30 degree shoulder. So the fact is that even the footnotes do not support the claims. Red herrings?
design is so efficient and forgiving that accuracy loads producing velocities in the 2-3000ft/s range are easily achieved: So efficient, so forgiving, mea culpa mea maxima culpa. What proof is there that it is efficient? What proof is there the it forgives sins :)?
they remain the only pure example of the original, digitally-optimized round: Is there proof of this?
use them effectively, in conjunction with portable computers... 1400 yd who says so?
Claim regarding the 300 Savage footnote: Footnoted #3 No such claim made in the footnote regarding the Savage in the article.
Adoption is an accepted practice in the gun world and one which manufacturers have used for decades to take advantage of the marketplace.: Footnote #4 No where does any article state this in the booklet. Or is it supposed to be that the whole booklet is a testament to such the claim and is being used as an example? I don't understand the use of that footnote.

None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities).

I have no doubt that the cartridge can be used to hunt. But is there evidence that it was used to hunt the specified species? And really how many hunters out there hunt with the Jonson cartridges? Not more than a maximum of 5 in total and I am being generous.

As for stealing editors time... Let me explain... No one can be stealing anything that is given away freely. So unless the wiki has chosen to pay an editor, you volunteer your time. If the wiki is stealing your time then find a place that does not steal your time.

DeusImperator (talk) 16:56, 12 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, -- Cirt (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as deletion reasons not supported or referenced

1. The level of informational support required by the one person calling for deletion of articles on Jonson cartridges is not evidenced on any other cartridge article.
2. The reasons given for deletion are not supported or referenced and are themselves heresay. Where are the attacker's credentials? What are the underlying reasons for saying something is not true?
3. Why all the virulence in the comments in this discussion - leads one to assume there is an alternative motive in attacking this well-done article.

Please replace the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles until this discussion can be attended by persons without obvious bias

The references at this top of this page cannot be verified because the 7.62 Jonson and 9mm Jonson articles have been deleted without complete discussion or verification and only the word of one person

This is not a personal project but one whose contents have been vetted by the owner/invetor of Jonson Arms, a legitimate firearms and ammunition manufacturer with a current FFL and manufacturing facilities in two states. Just because somebody does not want to do the work to verify information does not make in untenable.
There is massive interest in these cartridges, evidenced by the fact that Jonson firearms are made in the US and Australia and sold to customers.
The .30 caliber cartridge IS a benchrest round and was designed as such. The round was the first commercial computer generated rifle cartridge and this fact can be documented. The round was designed using the 6mm PPC round as a starting point with the collaboration of Ferris Pindell and Dr. Palmisano, the "inventors" of PPC technology, who could not make a .30 caliber version work. Does one need to reference every statement with manufacturer drawings to convince the wiki community that the statement is true? Take a look at the 6 mm PPC article on wiki. It states, "it [6mmPPC] is one of the most accurate cartridges available", referenced by an article written on a popular benchrest forum. Is an article written by a forum member now considered gospel?

Fixed with a proper source - now if we could just do the same here. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by 3 most important cartridge lines. The American, British and German military cartridge lineages fit the description exactly.
The cartridge was designed by a computer algorithm that Mr. Jonson named The Jonson Factor.
During the 1990s, the Jonson rounds were discussed on rec.guns with Gale McMillan, John Lazzeroni, Rick Jamison, Zareh Ohanian, and others, all of whom built rounds based on the Jonson Factor, which was discussed at length on the board. The 7.62 Jonson was, during testing since 1978, called the 7.82 Jonson and this name was picked up and used by Mr, Lazzeroni, in 1997, to name his Patriot round. The documentation exists that can prove this statement and it has been shown me by the inventor. Again, did anyone ask John Lazzeroni for proof of his concept? I don't see anyone attacking the wiki article on his products.
PPC rounds have a 30 degree shoulder. The shoulder angle can be proven mathematically to be a major accuracy feature of any round. Since the PPC rounds are the most accurate ever designed, which is supported in wiki articles, a round designed from the PPCs with the same shoulder angle, no other round could match these characteristics.
The round is efficient and this efficiency can be easily shown mathematically. Again, why does this statement need to be proved when it is so obvious to any ballistics aficionado? Some calculations would have answered this question.
The Australian manufacturer of Jonson firearms supports the 1400 yards statement.
Again, why is this use attacking a simple statement that these rounds were designed with elements that make .300 Savage a good round? The footnote is only so the Savage round can be read about and the elements considered, not "proof" of the statement. Isn't it obvious that he would be the only one that could verify this statement?

This last "Adoption" comment states the entire case for ignoring the attack on the Jonson rounds and keeping the articles. The plainly cited article on Remington's adoption of popular wildcats has not been read carefully by the attacker. In the article "Domesticated But Not Tamed" in the reference, Terry Wieland, a well-known gun writer, obviously writing in a Remington-sponsored magazine, states, "Adopting the brainchild of a basement handloader, producing it commercially and adding the name "Remington" has a long and wonderful history."

I will repeat that this is a one-person attack on articles that were well researched, written from interviews with the inventor/designer of the rounds, and it was expected that others would contribute to the efficacy of the information, not attack them for no reason and delete them from wiki for little reason and with no discussion, except his own comments.

Here's one as an example: None of the footnotes even provide evidence of what it is being cited for in the footnote let alone saying anything about the Jonson cartridge. Just because there are footnotes does anyone bother fact checking them? It is footnoted so it must be true. Heard that before. One of the best one (before it was removed) was the Delta L problem being listed for the cartridge; what a laugh. How could it even have a Delta L problem as neither CIP nor SAAMI have even published anything remotely regarding this cartridge (and I have access every single publication by both entities). See the Delta L note another wiki member made Talk:6.5 Jonson and you'll see this comment is bogus. Meksikatsi (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment and above in this response you see the basic problem. The claims above are based on personal knowledge, original research, etc. The core issue of notability and reliable sources is not addressed, which is the reason the cartridge is listed for deletion. If you're aware of reliable sources we can use to substantiate claims in the article and establish notability, then please provide them. But note that "talking to the inventor", "in my expert opinion", forums, etc don't do this. First check the guidelines at WP:RS and then let's improve the article. If sources to establish notability cannot be found, then deletion is appropriate. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree there might be areas that depend on "talking with the inventor" in this article, however, an article should not be deleted because parts of it are not reliably sourced. My comments on the Talk:6.5 Jonson page address this point. DeusImperator complains that the author references Delta L as not being applicable to the Jonson rounds as they are not CIP or SAAMI registered. Delta L does not only refer to CIP and SAAMI registered cartridges, so is this error alone on the part of DeusImperator enough to disqualify him from commenting on the article? No. Then why should an entire article be deleted on the basis that some of the article's comments are not referenced. Take out the offending comments, sure. But deleting, without proper discussion over time, entire articles that refer to actual, commercially-viable rifle rounds should not happen.

For my personal edification, how would one reference comments in an interview from an inventor? If these articles are deleted, then I agree with meksikatsi that the 6 mm PPC article should go also, for some of the same reasons, for forum articles are not reliable references, as AliveFreeHappy has noted, and that article relies on them. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just about parts not being sourced, the basic issue is notability. IE we have to establish notability per WP:Notability, which we have failed to do. Re interviewing an editor, you can't reference such comments - it's not allowed. see WP:OR. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the commetns about the 6 mm PPC article you might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's not a useful argument in deletion discussions. Note however that the 6ppc article does not RELY on forum sources, it has load data from a national vendor, and an article from a well known gun author to establish notability. That's what we're looking for here. If you can just take the effort you're putting into this and focus on finding such sources, we could all move forward and keep the article. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not putting that much effort in although others are. I can support the article author and provide some other references, as in the Australian article I just added. But I repeat that I believe the other Jonson cartridge articles should be put back up until a time where it's obvious there are no other references to be made and to let the author fix what is wrong. Putting an article up for AfD and deleting it in the same month without any input from the author or other contributors doesn't seem to be serving the wiki community.

I do see your point on the OtherStuffExists rule but my point was that not all the info in the Jonson articles is undocumented. I think that you can get rid of the offending material without destroying an entire article about an existing and commercially manufactured rifle cartridge and weapons. 100%BulletProof TALK 19:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So just to clarify additionally, the fact the something exists doesn't qualify it for a wikipedia article, which may be where the confusion is coming from. It's about notability. The articles went through the community approved deletion process and while they can be recreated, doing it without addressing the core notability issue will result in them just being deleted again. Let's get the sources figured out on this one if possible, and then look at next steps. If you can find the proper references that show it's notable and the others as well, I'll be happy to provide assistance. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delta L problem does not apply to this cartridge if one were to look at the min. max chamber dimensions provided it is when the cartridge max published size is greater than the chamber min size published. So how would there be a Delta L problem here? Who published this dimensions? And if it is a wildcat cartridge a Delta L issue is a non-issue because a Delta L issue is ever present. But no one is going to run around screaming Delta L problem Delta L problem Delta L problem. IT IS A GIVEN! If it is a proprietary cartridge the cartridge owner exercises control over reamers etc. so it should not be an issue unless company is unable to maintain and produce equipment to the correct tolerances. All equipment would have to be purchased form Jonson for this cartridge and if the cartridge was not to fit in the chamber who's problem is that? The Delta L is not mentioned in the article but just added whimsically to the references. Someone with a modicum of intelligence removed it as there was nothing in the article talking about it anyway.

I stand by the statement I made regarding the footnotes. None of the 4 mentioned support what they are cited for let alone talk about the 6.5 Jonson. The values referenced by Footnote #1 Where the heck does Layne Simpson talk about the Jonson cartridge in the article 20th Century Top Cartridges does he give any values regarding velocity for the info box? And if foot note #1 is used what is it attempting to cite?

What is the Jonson factor? What is the algorithm. What it is should be defined in some manner or removed. DeusImperator (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delta L CAN refer to the difference between CIP and SAAMI specs for cartridges but it can also refer to general problems associated with chamber fit due to specification differences. In fact the wiki primary definition is "The delta L problem (ΔL problem) is a condition that occurs regarding certain firearms chambers and their practical incompatibility with ammunition made for the corresponding chambering." In the case of Jonson products, several reamer manufacturers around the world, including Manson Precision Reamers and Clymer Manufacturing Co. in the US, Lipawsky Tools in Belgium, and Morgan Tooling & Measurement in Australia, have been licensed to make Jonson reamers and/or dies for the rounds. In the US, Redding is exclusively licensed to make Jonson dies and can sell anyone die sets for making Jonson rounds as long as Jonson Labs approves the purchase. These diverse sources provide the differences in manufacturing that introduce the Delta L problem to users of Jonson rounds, especially as users can make their own cases from forming die sets made in different countries, with different measurement systems and different tooling. As I understand it, all Jonson products come with specifications from the individual licensees due to these system differences.

It seems the Layne Simpson citation was removed by the author when he removed the part of the article it was in, so that is no longer an issue.

How do you define or come up with a citation about a proprietary piece of software? The company explains this on their web site and as far as I know they can call their process anything they like. This issue is repeated in the Winchester Short Magnum entry. Although most cartridge aficionados recognize the chain of events that took place as the .300 WSM was being developed, the article states that Winchester came up with the round independently of outside influence. Come on. In any case, if a statement about a software program written by Jonson Labs isn't allowed, then any reference to how a manufacturer comes up with products would have to be disallowed, since the technology isn't about to be shared, much less documented publicly to be cited. (Yes, I realize I am flrting with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here). All of this has been removed from the article so it no longer applies anyway. 100%BulletProof TALK 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cartridge volume, pressure, barrel length, bore friction and propellant are the only considerations as far as bullet velocity is concerned. Whatever is claimed by this Jonson factor would have to follow real world physics. Unless something magical/supernatural is happening inside this cartridge none of these velocity values claimed are approachable. The article is written to increase interest in the cartridge which has no prior notability going for it.

I have run the capacity numbers and have come up with the following a the absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume) the 6.5 Jonson and found this value in grains H2O capacity of 102.4431124 for the 6.5 Jonson. The volume of the .264 Winchester Mag Absolute volume above the belt rim gives 101.9756434 grain of H2O. Obviously if one understands the measurement the .264 Winchester Mag will actually hold about 10 grains more if the volume is calculated in the same manner as the 6.5 Jonson was when not accounting for belt rim volume. So quite a bit extra credit has been provided for the 6.5 Jonson. So following the PV=nRT and F=PA how could the 6.5 Jonson provide a higher velocity than the .264 Win mag given equal pressures (not looking a propellant factors)? Oh that is right MAGIC or in this case the Magic Jonson Factor!!!

I respectfully point out that your calculations are incorrect, which might be influencing your thinking about the cartridges. I have these rounds in LFAD and QL and they predict 83.8 gr. H2O and 84.7 gr H2O respectively. To corroborate, I measured an actual 7.62 Jonson case and my digital scale says it contains 84.5 gr. H20. If you have QL you can put the cartridge dimensions in the program and run the math for the 140 gr Nosler Partition and easily get 3200 fps out of a 24" barrel. It would be quite simple for the company to claim whatever number [was there before it was removed] by simply increasing the length of the test barrel. What attracted me to these rounds in the beginning was their efficiency, which must come from the design. What is efficiency? I encourage you to use a ballistics program and play around with cartridge length. It doesn't seem to matter how LONG you make these rounds (therefore increasing case capacity); as long as you keep the basic parameters the same the velocity numbers will not change dramatically. If that's magic, then QL is predicting it. 100%BulletProof TALK 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

READ what I wrote. "absolute chamber volume of (minus the base volume)". Yes the actual overflow volumes are much lower but that calculation was shown to gauge (in the absence of an actual cartridge) the volume. QL is based on VOLUME. They do not make a magical calculations for "their design". LOL. The use the max overflow - bullet shank volume below case mouth and then using the density of the powder find out how much powder it can hold. AND if you bothered reading the disclaimer it says "W A R N I N G. The data provided by QL CANNOT be used as a substitute for information gained from standard handloading manual references; further; it CANNOT used as a substitute for conventional handload development.... " All emphasis theirs not mine." as for "It doesn't seem to matter how LONG you make these rounds (therefore increasing case capacity); as long as you keep the basic parameters the same the velocity numbers will not change dramatically" is true for ANY cartridge not just for your doo-dad. A 300 Win mag burns 25% more powder but produces an increase of around 10% more velocity than the 30-06 and the 300 is a fatter cartridge. The .284 win and the 280 have the same volume but the .284 if fatter design and the velocity is about the same. Equal usable case capacity provides equal velocity if pressures and (powder power factors are equal. The faster a bullet is driven the greater the inefficiency. There is no magic in design. On the Wiki, I too have written BS such as this just because it is repeated in the gun rags so often even though as a physicist I would consider such claims are mostly bunk (very little efficiency can actually be gained at the dimensions of cartridges below 2%), it is NOT my opinion that counts, REMEMBER YOU ARE NOT THE PRIMARY SOURCE NOR DO YOU "INTERVIEW" YOURSELF AS A SOURCE (or even others). All information must be sourced and if enough sources keep repeating the falsehood it "can" be written into the Wiki. Remember the wiki is an encyclopedia if you want to compose an ode to your doo-dad, or sing its praises there are far better venues for that than the Wiki. Reliable sources are a must.

As for influencing my thinking, The only factors here are the pure and utter drivel written by you before the article originator deleted the most of it. The cartridge is insignificant and not noteworthy. And as your stated you do have a WP:COI issue. The references had nothing to do with the article etc. Those are the issues here.

Comment there is a lot of back-and-forth re various issues, but the core issue of notability is still a problem. As an example, I queried google for the broader topic of "Jonson Arms" to see what I could find. Under books and scholar, I get zip. Using web with parameters to avoid wikipeida and the jonson website, there are very few hits, and many are echoes of wikipedia, and most are not related at all. Similar is true for "7.62 Jonson" with most being echoes of wikipedia or forums, nothing in the first few pages that could be even close to WP:RS. Ditto for "6.5 Jonson". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jonson Labs has requested not to be associated with the wiki article under discussion so I believe that should be the end of the discussion. This excerpt from an email to me makes the issue crystal clear. “The company bases our decision on the possibility of negative repercussions with regard to information, with little or no factual representation, disseminated to the public due to the discussion being held on Wikipedia Projects. 100%BulletProof TALK 17:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jonson Labs choices are not relevant on this issue. It's just a matter of whether we have reliable sources to establish notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without coverage in reliable sources, the subject cannot be considered notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Calle Gracey[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage by reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 12:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above... WP:RS Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur P. Barone III[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet guidelines at WP:WPBB/N. 26 years old and has never been affiliated with a Major League Baseball organization. Author's only contribution. Wknight94 ^talk 12:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 ^talk 12:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as described. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indy leaguers aren't very notable. Alex (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Bet[edit]

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

Article was originally titled Alex King (bet_winner), and was prodded on grounds of WP:SINGLEEVENT, failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E apart from the one event, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources for anything other than the single prank noted. Article has now been renamed, but is still almost entirely about the person who played the prank. The prank itself had brief coverage in the UK national press, but still fails notability per WP:Notability (events) , including WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:SENSATION. Top Jim (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One single event. News coverage of the subject has been isolated to the week in 2006 in which this incident occurred. Significant coverage is not evident or persistent to validate notability for either the event or individual. Recommend article deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article also appears to be an WP:Autobiography: see WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikiRecontributer47/Archive for previous account name of creator. Top Jim (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether this incident is notable, but if it is, this story and this story ought to be considered if we're going into detail about Mr. King. You did read WP:LUC, didn't you? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think we could ever use either of those articles as a reference for anything related to a living person?! If you did, please make sure you read WP:BLP. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why not. The Sun isn't exactly renowned for accuracy and balance, but they still wouldn't publish an allegation that serious without evidence to back that up if it goes to court. Failing that, there's quite a bit of interesting material in references 2 and 6 (which came from broadsheets) which have also been glossed over. Not saying we should have an article about that, but there's just as much reason to write this about him as there is for that stunt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Cindamuse, there is no evidence of long term notability. Smartse (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Democracy Institute[edit]

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

This article has been at Wikipedia for years, and although there are many versions of the article in the history, it is always at some level of self-promotion. The sourcing in the current iteration of the article is nonexistent. There seems to be a better, more neutral version of the article at this old diff, but in that version as well, the only sources that seem to be writing about this organization are written by the organization's founder. I looked for reliable independent sources] I could use to clean up this article, and didn't find any. Google books wasn't any more help. If no one outside the organization is writing about it, then there's no independent information from which to write a better article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. When I see expressions like "psycho-social-political paradigm" (in Deep Democracy) I know it's going to be hard going. I agree about the coverage, and when I see "You can join our trainings" I think of spam (and not because I'm getting hungry...). I would congratulate FisherQueen on a bit of hard work and digging, by the way, and would hope that the DDI people use a bit more understandable language at their town meetings than that in the text of the DD article. Peridon (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the talk page: Sorry for having been so slow to respond to all of these issues. I created the page initially, which I understand that I shouldn't have done. Others have since picked up an interest in updating the article. I am writing now hoping that it is okay that I add some references here in the deletion discussion. Here are links to some other sites that discuss various things about the Deep Democracy Institute.

http://www.ita2010.com/Max-Schupbach http://eurotas.org/about-us/newsletter/no-60---16-05-2010.html http://www.turningforward.org/associates.html http://www.livingdemocracy.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=103 http://practicalmysticmusings.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/deep-democracy-conflict-resolution-and-polarity/ http://www.processwork.sk/en/contacts.html http://www.aamindell.net/blog/2010-news http://www.janus.org.br/ http://pacificinstitute.org/deepdemocracy.html http://www.iapop.com/dissertations/hamann-organisational.pdf http://www.processworkaustralia.org.au/community.html http://www.dawnmenken.com/contact.html http://processworkireland.org/resources.shtml http://infolokerterbaru.com/info-deep-democracy-institute--facebook.html http://www.aamindell.net/news-2007.htm http://www.processworklane.com/pocr.htm http://events.linkedin.com/Evolutionary-Leadership-Business/pub/448170 http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2010/08/26/be-gracious-dont-lose-twice/

Stanfordsiver (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

This Deep Democracy Institute page is important in that there is discussion of it in numerous other places, and this is growing. The Institute has a number of projects which is drawing interest in different parts of the world due to the principles of deep democracy, and the impact of the application of those principles to conflict zones. Nick Turner Nickturnerwiki (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Deep Democracy Institute offers leadership programs around the world. The global reach of this program and related activities open up new and diverse networks and partnerships across sectors and disciplines. This page offers a valuable information source for the diverse entry points, locations and contexts of a growing community of leaders, conflict resolvers and entrepreneurs.

Julia Wolfson, Turning Forward, Australia Julia.wolfson (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

   I checked the first three links on that list, and none of them were reliable, independent sources writing in detail about Deep Democracy Institute. Maybe someone could weed out the other links that aren't helpful? The ones you should leave are the ones that are published independently of the organization, and write in detail about its importance- newspaper articles, magazine articles, books by people who aren't in the institute, for example. Just a bunch of links to associate organizations doesn't do anything but make it difficult to find the useful sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

After seeing the histories of notices and issues with this article, I wrote the current version with the intention of greater neutrality and description than the previous version. I also followed examples that I saw on other wiki articles. I understand that the wiki editor thinks that the previous version was actually better and I would be happy to change back or to incorporate the best of both but I don’t yet understand completely how to do that in the most neutral way. Hoping to receive thoughts from others and recommendations for improvements to this one or integrating the two.

Also, I see the discussion of the sources and want to add here some independent information about DDI. Some of it is through a DDI URL but opens an article or interview that is sourced elsewhere: I am adding it now to the discussion in hopes that the notice to delete will be removed and also I, and others, will be integrating these sources into the main article soon.

Interview with ShrinkRapRadio

Interview at Ukrainian Business School

Article in Journal of University of Stellenbosch Business School

University of Stellenbosch Business School

article on deep democracy discussing ddi

Deep Democracy, Conflict Resolution and Polarity

Deep Democracy Institute’s New Programs on Arny & Amy Mindell website

Evolutionary Leadership in Business

I know that there are other articles and interviews, which I will track down and add to this list and to the article’s references.

Nickturnerwiki (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Nick Turner

I have been a participant for several years in the original Deep Democracy Institute program in the West Bank, Palestine. and i'm doing my Master program in Conflict facilitation and deep democracy because of their effect on me from Palestine. I think this page adds a lot to that program and I know that many of us have read what is here and hope to see more. I know that there are some articles written about their work in Arabic and I will search for online sources and references to add to what is here. I hope that this article continues to grow, as the institute is doing, and feel that is deserves support. Mohammadargh (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

end of copying

Delete nothing in gnews [17]. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Koopcas[edit]

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

non notable software. unsourced and very few google hits - nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that there are no third party sources indicates, that is a non-notable software. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move, retitle, and Repurpose The software itself is clearly non-notable -- I could not even find anything in Google, using several variations . But the software is a product of Cebu People's Multi-Purpose Cooperative [18], which may well be notable--it has at least a 3rd party news ref. [19] and some mentions--there may also be refs for some of its other projects. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider The software is somehow notable -- I am an employee of Dumanjug Multi-Purpose Cooperative, even though this software is not widely known all around the world, but here in the Philippines the cooperative sector has known well this software for providing a cost effective alternative to costly proprietary accounting softwares and really helps cooperatives in the operation. 22:38 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.22.249 (talk)

this may be, but we can not really have an article on it without some evidence that shows it. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 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) 00:01, 11 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, Ged UK 12:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retain, we have added a link in the Wiki Article about a very recent implementation of Koopcas to a big cooperative in Northern Luzon Philippines, they are the first cooperative that publishes to the web regarding their implementation of KoopCAS, more cooperatives will follow soon. This can be referred to as making this software notable. Please do consider retaining this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.71.133 (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A link to a blog saying you sold a copy does not establish notability. See WP:reliable sources noq (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have added a new link directly to the official website of one of the big cooperatives in Cebu, FCCT has recently signed contract with CPMPC for KoopCAS, maybe this could be considered being notable. As I have said earlier that more cooperatives who have choosen to implement KoopCAS are slowly publishing it to the web. I hope this could be considered being notable. Please do consider keeping this article on this prestigious website Wikipedia. Thanks and more power to you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.71.133 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, a brief mention on a customer website does not qualify as a WP:reliable source for establishing notability. noq (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to Secrets Can Kill, the video game that this is an element of. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Murder of Jacob Rogers[edit]

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

I didn't speedy this because it doesn't fit neatly in any of the categories, but it seems like an obvious delete. This is an article about a particular plot element in a particular character's life in a barely notable Nancy Drew video game. Tried to prod, but creator removed the tag saying this article serves as some sort of "tribute". I'm not sure what that means. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A made-up story (fan fiction) based on a video game. This article is written to present a video character as a real person, complete with an infobox and persondata. None of the refs support the content in the article. I think the idea of a "tribute" indicates that someone may be spending too much time playing video games. I would delete this as a hoax and original research. Cindamuse (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jixi cold noodles[edit]

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

WP:N ? I think so. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Delete, weakly. I find nothing that looks like a reliable source in English news or books searches, and very little in general searches, nothing that's a reliable source. There may be sources out there; if there are, likely they are in Chinese, and I'm not going to find them. This does seem to be confirmable, though.[20] That page suggests that soba, where buckwheat noodle also redirects to, might be a redirect possibility. If it were shown that this dish has some kind of commercial, cultural, or historical significance, I would cheerfully change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chinese noodles as this article is unlikely to be supportable by enough verifiable sources to meet notability standards. I like the photos uploaded by the principal editor and the photos, as well as the variety of noodles illustrated, are worth keeping in the noodles article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find any reliable sources and there is nothing to merge. The pictures will not deleted and they can be added to Chinese noodles, where appropriate. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since nobody but the author seems to celebrate this particular variation. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sandie Caine[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rojhat saeed[edit]

Deleted.

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EO Products[edit]

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

Obscure skin care product manufacturer; not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable company. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not appear to establish notability, was made by a probable SPA (Nkutaiba (talk · contribs)). May want to review some of their other articles. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engineers World[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine, too new to be notable yet. No reliable third-party sources. Prod was removed by probable COI editor (same name as founding EIC of the magazine). Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 09:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable student magazine. No third-party sources. Salih (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11. This article is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ram Murti Smarak International Business School[edit]

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

This article appears to fail the notability for organizations guidelines. There are 466 colleges affiliated with the Uttar Pradesh Technical University and there is little independent evidence of notability for this business college in the article or available on Google and none on Google News. This private college offers a PGDM (post-graduate diploma in management) but not an MBA. Currently the references provided are generic and do not establish a case against the general notability guidelines. There may be a better (certainly easier) case for an article about the SRMS group of colleges. Earlier PROD (and improvement templates) removed so raising for wider discussion.

Note, rather than a 'free-standing' college of education, this organization is a private business school in turn part of the private group of educational companies managed by Shri Ram Murti Smarak Trust. The PGDM course is affiliated with the University, presumably by having associate lecturers on loan. Consequently the most appropriate interpretation of notability can be found at Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education in the bullet point called Departments or degree programs with Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines#Faculties and academic colleges providing similar guidance that there is no assumption of automatic notability for such organizations. Fæ (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, the current version is just spam. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Witney and District League 2010-11[edit]

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

I do not believe this local amateur league, the highest division of which sits at the notional 13th level of the English football league system, merits individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, the league isn't high enough to warrant a season article. Just a list of champions on the league article would suffice here. Bettia (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't need seperate individual season articles. Giant Snowman 12:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator's reasoning. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even the people of Witney care. BigDom More tea, vicar? 15:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is just an extensive listing of statistics without reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Angrisani[edit]

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

30 days in the New Page Patrol queue because nobody knows what to do with it, so I'm offering it for a decision by the community. The article has an extremely promotional tone and is peppered with inline links to his own website. No inline sourced references. Notable or not, this is blatant advertising and would need a massive rewrite and many WP:RS to conform to policy. Article was posted by a single use account (WP:SPU). Kudpung (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Kudpung (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, the article was patrolled five minutes after creation by User:Ttonyb1, who added maintenance tags for multiple issues, and apparently overlooked the need to remove the article from the queue. The tags were improperly removed prior to this AfD nomination. This individual is highly notable, as indicated through the significant coverage discovered through the links provided above. That said, the initial editor that created the article is actually the co-author of the subject's book. While there is a conflict of interest, a conflict is not a criteria for deletion. The article needs a good copyedit, along with footnotes, but in my opinion, it doesn't warrant deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whatever sourcing problems there are, clearly a notable subject for biographic treatment and no apparent BLP concerns. Carrite (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moment of inertia. –MuZemike 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel[edit]

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

This article pretty much amounts to a how-to article. The first two paragraphs are just introductions to moment of inertia and mechanics, which leaves the last paragraph about how to measure the equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel. Moreover, this topic is completely not notable. Wizard191 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content with ~~Worm drive~~ moment of inertia; delete the rest. I don't see the point of a redirect either. -- role^player 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment amended based on comments below. -- role^player 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is certainly notable being covered in numerous works about mechanics. The moment of inertia article is awful and we could use some more accessible text such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to moment of inertia perhaps; the topic alone doesn't warrant a stand-alone article—Chris!_c/t 23:08, 14 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, Sandstein 06:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge into moment of inertia as an example. The present article is too unsubstantial to be kept separately. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cote[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines under WP:MUSICBIO. Artist has released one album which has not charted. Can't source the Billboard quote Plad2 (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've added one reference with some actual content in BillBoard, but I can't find enough reliable secondary coverage myself to establish notability under MUSICBIO or the GNG. Note that Billboard is largely covered by Google Books (as indicated by the reference I did just add), and that if the quote were accurate, I would expect it to be possible to find there, and I wasn't. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Obvious G10 Courcelles 07:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubashkin crime family[edit]

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

Courtesy blanking was proposed under CSD G10 John Nagle (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy deletion was proposed, and is contested, so an AfD is appropriate under WP:DP to resolve the issue. See this version of the article for the content.)

The main issue here is the title of the article. The article content is a list of members of the R. family who have been convicted of crimes or are out on bail awaiting trial. This totals six people. All criminal activity is properly cited to reliable sources such as the New York Times, and is not in dispute. The question is whether putting those items in the same article constitutes "synthesis" under Wikipedia rules. There was some previous discussion of simply titling the article "Rubashkin family", but mixing the crooks and the non-crooks in the same article seemed to create WP:BLP issues. The use of the term "crime family" is the sticking point. An alternative title might fix the problem. This needs some neutral observers. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, John, the issue is not whether putting them all in the same article constitutes synthesis. The issue is that any article under this name is an obvious violation of CSD:G10. Which requires deletion of the article, not renaming. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G10, as an attack page. Not one reliable source discusses the Rubashkin family as a "crime family." In general such an article would be deleted via afd on WP:SYNTH grounds. But as we are dealing with numerous WP:BLP's, the article must be deleted as an attack page.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough call. Five of them are convicted criminals, and there's no argument about that. The Forward, usually considered a reliable source, has editorialized on the family's record, pulling together the family's various criminal activities in a single article. They wrote "Agriprocessors is one of a network of businesses owned by the Rubashkin family, a large, tight-knit clan identified with the Lubavitch community in Brooklyn. The operations, like the family, may be considered a package." [21] So there's a reliable source for pulling all this together. The phrase "crime family" may be a bit much. Can anyone suggest other language? {Simply using "family" was considered, but mixing up the crooks and the non-crooks in the family raised WP:BLP issues.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Rubashkin family, there does not seem to be independent notability beyond the criminal activity. As I mention below, an article about them as a "crime family" is inappropriate. An article about them as a "family" is non-notable. Joe407 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term crime family refers not to a blood family but to an organized crime syndicate. The Rubashkin family is not an organized syndicate but rather a bunch of criminals who are related. At most, this should be renamed just "Rubashkin family" but I tend towards delete because it violates BLP rules for the family at large (i.e. anyone with that last name who is not a criminal) and WP:SYNTH as pointed out by User:Brewcrewer. Joe407 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy CSD:G10 clealy states "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." Nagle has been informed of this repeatedly at the article talk page, but is disrupting process by trying to make it an AFD issue. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not inappropriate to report negative information about convicted criminals, and so it's not obvious at all that this is an attack page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Rubashkin family and change references in the article. Everything besides the fact it is a crime family is referenced. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is very well sourced, most of the individuals already have their own articles and/or are featured prominently in articles such as Agriprocessors, and they have been treated collectively in reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(add to top of list)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise-a-Home[edit]

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

This article is entirely original research. The product/company isn't all that notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concededly original research by the author: the only reference provided is "Information obtained from an interview with the company founder Warren Jensen, November 6, 2003" Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for other references to establish notability. All I found was a website under construction, a fan website, some boat sales listings and so on. Not notable, article based on original research. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously an original research, no relevant references to establish notability. Rirunmot (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is noted that there is also no prejudice to merging, and that can always be done post-AFD, with additional discussion and consensus-building if necessary. –MuZemike 00:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky Phillips manhunt controversy[edit]

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

A BLP article that, by its very nature, can never be neutral point-of-view D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significantly covered by reliable sources, and thus notable. No explanation of the purported non-neutrality is provided. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Keep for the reasons above. Merge because the controversy article is fairly short, as is the Bucky Phillips article. I don't see any reason why it needs to be spread out over two pages. Bds69 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Indifferent to whether or not it remains separate or is merged. I'm the editor who forked this out of the articlespace in the first place, and if I recall correctly (it was 4 years ago) it was in response to a consensus that the material, though appropriately cited and supported in secondary sources, threatened to overwhelm the biographical article and needed to be forked out on its own. Ford MF (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge Not necessary or appropriate as a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per nominator, see note below. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph "Bucky" Phillips[edit]

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

BLP, an article that is inherently NPOV by its very nature. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close, I mistakenly nominate the wrong article, sorry. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The orchard school[edit]

The result was speedily deleted as nonsense/vandalism by PMDrive1061 (talk) --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable..is there an SD tag that will work, since WP:A7 doesn't qualify. Only an elementary/middle school http://www.orchard.org/ CTJF83 chat 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. G3 CSD blatant hoax. Cindamuse (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked to the real school, how is it a hoax? CTJF83 chat 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Invoking WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW and deleting this immediately as nonsense/vandalism. PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion seem to outweigh and refute the arguments for retention here. –MuZemike 00:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrafusion[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND coverage consists of social networks, youtube, or cd/music selling/user reviews CTJF83 chat 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also a WP:COI user has been creating/editing further articles regarding the band's albums [22] [23]. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan on WP:A9ing them if the group is deleted, rather than AfD all of the articles. CTJF83 chat 05:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable - insufficient independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete fails WP:MUSIC, blatant WP:COI, and the record label they're "signed" to doesn't even exist. 2 says you, says two 18:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not outright fail WP:MUSIC, to my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009)[41], Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) [42], and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009)[43] and interviewed on a few radio stations [44]. As for the WP:COI, I was under the impression that if it exists, it simply meant that an editor must exercise extreme caution when editing articles, and be especially careful to maintain a neutral POV, and the article seems to show that that was done, and if it wasn't, the article should be edited, not deleted. Lastly, I believe the record label does exist. [45]. GrizCakes (talk) 06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most, if not all, of your sources appear to not be reliable, which is one of the main criteria for WP:GNG....plus a lot are not even in English, for me to verify CTJF83 chat 06:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was aiming for more sources are better than less, 5,7,8,10,13,17, the Magazines, and the Radio interview are the ones to focus on, as for the sources not in English, doesn't the fact that the article is covered internationally strengthen the case for notability? GrizCakes (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the coverage is non-trivial...I can't check to see how trivial the coverage is on non-English sites. CTJF83 chat 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They all appear to be album reviews, which appears to go against WP:BAND #1 exceptions CTJF83 chat 19:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - 17 and the radio interview appear to focus on the band, I believe there was also a News Network interview (ABC 33/40), and some other radio interviews, but I'm having difficulty finding verifiable proof. GrizCakes (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I brought it here....lack of verifiable sources. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's difficult for a band of their size and time of being active to have entirely reliable sources. Album reviews, magazine articles, and radio interviews are all they have, which are completely independent sources that state information about the band as a third party. The band is definitely above water in the industry, with albums for sale at Best Buy, albums charting on Bestsellers charts, etc. WP:COI doesn't really apply as the articles are created to benefit Wikipedia in the sense that when media focuses on the band, they can have an entirely, objective source to draw information from, rather than relying on bias and subjectivity from other opinionated columns/interviews. This page has been active for quite awhile and only seems to be edited with strict, appropriate updates and appears from the editing logs to be used entirely for logistical reasons.AllMusicReview (chat 22:12, 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, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scarlet Letter SparkTune[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG only very few very trivial coverage CTJF83 chat 04:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable song without reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ōmuta (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This topic does not need a disambiguation page armagebedar (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it does to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the contents of the dab page should be integrated into the main article, deleting the dab page without integration is unhelpful. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wth? It seems quite clear that this word does need disambiguation, since there are five pages that it is related to. In fact, Speedy Keep, per 1.2, the nominator advances no argument for deletion. Silver seren^C 16:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close the page itself says it all. 2 says you, says two 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Five possible things to disambiguate among, most of them named after one but otherwise not directly related to each other = needed dab page. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. Keep per all the reasons already given. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 22:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hard to understand why this was even nominated for deletion. --DAJF (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons above. In fairness to the nom, I can see a reason why this was nominated for deletion in good faith. If there were articles [[Ōmuta]], [[Ōmuta (sumo)]], [[Ōmuta (citrus fruit)]], and [[Ōmuta (Tochigi)]] then a disambiguation page would be obviously needed. There is one main article Ōmuta, and the others are "something else + Ōmuta + something else", and so it's not quite as clear cut. Nomination is understandable, but it's still a speedy keep.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ōmuta Station can be linked from a dab hatnote in Ōmuta. The rest are partial title matches, and not ambiguous with "Ōmuta". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:2DAB, it's perfectly fine (that page describes it as "harmless") to have a dab page with only two main entries. Additionally, there are a few articles on jawiki which could be translated to English and would expand the number of main entries on this page. There is no valid reason to delete this dab page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, harmless. Could be left alone, but as long as it has been nominated, can also be deleted. Being useless is a valid reason to delete it until there are more actually ambiguous articles from jawiki or elsewhere created. Being harmless is not a reason to keep it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Tenjin Ōmuta Line was formerly known as simply the Ōmuta Line (until 2000, when it changed names), so it's very possible for it to still be called "Ōmuta Line" by many people and therefore need disambiguation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that additional info, striking my !vote here and replacing below with a Keep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JHunterJ. Ōmuta, Fukuoka is the only article it would be naturally titled Ōmuta. Ōmuta Station is a partial title match but omission of "Station" is common so a hatnote might be helpful. Others, I don't think they belong to the disambiguation page because it is unlikely that they are simply known or called as "Ōmuta". --Kusunose 17:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shirt 58. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reworked. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is perfectly fine dab page. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of dominant sovereign states and their servient territories[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of dominant sovereign states and their servient territories (2nd nomination)

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

I believe this is listcruft. It violates WP:SYN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and most importantly WP:V, since it is not at all clear how the information is to be verified, partly because it is nowhere clear what information is being presented. We learn that Puerto Rico is a "servient territory" of the "dominant sovereign state" that is the America, but this doesn't help us learn what relationship actually obtains between these two entities, especially since entirely different relationships exist between the USA and the other entities listed under it as "servient" (how often is that word used in the literature anyway?). This list does not tell anybody anything, as its opening tacitly admits. Srnec (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dependent territory in a historical section. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this supposed to be merged? It is unsourced and the relationships between states unspecified. I think a merge is impossible. We don't need a list of this sort, so the list should be deleted. The list contains no information that we otherwise lack. Srnec (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the nom suggests, such a list actually inadvertently creates misinformation and encourages incorrect conclusions. Relationships between these entities can be properly explained in individual country articles, etc. And, simply because other dubious lists may exist is no justification for this one. And merging would simply cut'n'paste the problem to another place. --Merbabu (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incurable. Large empires were complex, evolving, at time amorphous affairs; their corresponding articles are wikipedia battlefields. Controversial content should not be reproduced elsewhere while there's disagreement about core subjects. I don't want to judge this list as acceptable or unacceptable per Wikipedia:Content forking; but it is clearly undesirable. East of Borschov 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lot of work went into this, but it just isn't work we can use in this form. "Servient territory" is an actual term of art in international law; adding to this list's problems, it is not remotely close to being strictly applicable to many of these entries. Instead, the stated inclusion criteria are so broad as to be impossible to verify, and, indeed, no effort is made to do so. Everything from uninhabited coral atolls to wartime occupations to some (but not all!) Indian states (and, curiously, none of the Indian union territories) is currently included. I can see no way to salvage this. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeburne R[edit]

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

Some second-rate band's third-rate prank is not notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 18:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't imagine a less worthy topic for a WP band article. The fake band's semi-real existence could possibly be mentioned very briefly at As Friends Rust but that's all. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ged UK 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Jalopy[edit]

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

This article contains no useful information and is about a complete non-entity. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That the nom doesn't think the subject ought to be important, or that the article is a stub, are not valid deletion grounds. Would the nom care to come up with a deletion ground that is valid? Granted, I can't imagine one myself that would counteract the subject passing the GNG by way of full length interviews of himself on NPR and in the New York Times. (The nom is likewise in error; I don't see a 1st AFD here.) Ravenswing 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I added a little information and one additional reference to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:5 i17 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are many descriptions of his works in reliable sources. Nightline filmed a segment in his workshop broadcast April, 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: two nominations were created, I copied content and redirected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Jalopy (2nd nomination) here. tedder (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not extensive coverage to meet WP:BIO. [46]. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't matter; it does meet the GNG, which trumps WP:BIO. Ravenswing 11:10, 19 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) 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the rough consensus indicates. Note that, in order to preserve attribution, if any editor wishes to move forward with splitting, the edit history will need to be undeleted. –MuZemike 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian war crimes[edit]

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

The main problem with the article is that it weaves together disparate incidents that are only marginally related to one another into one giant SYNTH so as to demonize a particular ethnic group. It treats events that occurred at different times and places, over a period of 100 years or so, as if they were part of a single unified plan, which is not how these events are treated in the literature. The way it is phrased and written, it also places blame on a particular ethnic group, when blame for such acts is usually directed at specific organizations or governments. The various parts of the article should be merged into the appropriate articles and "Serbian War Crimes" itself should be a category, as is the case with Category:Croatian War Crimes.
Athenean (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we have an article called German war crimes, which also deals with events in different places, and periods, in one article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article should be deleted too, as it is just a list of crimes, with almost no other text. It can be replaced by a category. Vanjagenije 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Split by war/period -- WWI, WWII, Yugoslav Wars of Disintegration. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. German war crimes should be split into one article for WW I and one for WW II, which I plan to propose shortly. Are IP editors allowed to participate in AfDs anyway? Athenean (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Uncle G (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is way to problematic under numerous questions, but first, all of those things cannot be added under the same umbrella as horrific master plan, as it was represented here. Article is POV like this, and cannot be fix in any regular way, as its main existence is forking. Also, per tags, talk page, and all other that are needed for delete. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the article itself is referenced and the subject notable. WhiteWriter maybe the article is too large and should be split, but AfD isn't the place to discuss such issues or whether the article is written in a pov way.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Athenean and WhiteWriter.--Andrija (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and split into few separate articles. The crimes mentioned in this article are by no means connected to each other. Vanjagenije 16:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "delete and split". Please pick one or the other. You cannot have both. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Absolutely unacceptable as it stands, COATRACKING the various atrocity complaints of several wars. I think encyclopedic articles can be written about WWII and the Bosnian conflict, definitely, but I would be more than a little surprised if the latter is not already sufficiently covered under other article titles. Needs to be split in three, at a minimum. If this isn't done, my recommendation would be to DELETE. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A textbook example of WP:SYNTH violation. There is no need for splitting, because the article is written in summary style, and almost every section has a ((main)) somewhere else (maybe merge something from "denial" section elsewhere). Exactly that summary style is the primary and incurable problem -- it attempts to summarize a list of disparate events. No such user (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Athenean and WhiteWriter, a great big DELETE from me. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool. --UrbanVillager (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this article, really, nor for German war crimes, American war crimes, etc. if separate, more detailed articles (will) exist (and they exist). Titles of such articles are offending, not all men who were/are members of one nation are guilty for misdeeds of individuals. -- Bojan Talk 08:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is pure propaganda article. This has nothing with encyclopedia. --Alexmilt (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I totally oppose the nominator arguments "...it weaves together disparate incidents...as if they were part of a single unified plan,...". The idea of territorial expansion of Serbia originally formulated in 1844, in Načertanije, a secret political program of the Principality of Serbia, according to which the new Serbian state could include the neighboring areas of Montenegro, Northern Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and parts of Croatia. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Athenean, WhiteWriter, No such user and Bojan. The article is trying to summarize atrocities from conflicts which have very little in common (different eras, different contexts, etc.) and therefore looks like a chapter taken from some right-wing conspiracy theorists. Perhaps some sections could be split into articles about Serbian crimes by wars and conflicts, but as it stands most of the content already exists in related articles. The fact that there was a recurring theme among nutcases from a particular region or an ethnic group in an arbitrarily selected timespan does not imply that there was an underlying conspiracy behind it. The existence of such articles add nothing to Wikipedia and only serve to advance paranoid agendas. Timbouctou 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject obviously meets the criteria set forth at WP:GNG and there is a precedent for this type of subject at Category:War crimes committed by country. The talk page does not show any strong effort to resolve POV concerns, so I'm left with the impression that any problems in the article are fixable. Location (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles in that category have cleanup tags on them. That may mean nothing, but it may also mean that they're not really a representative example. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split at the very least. Conflating these different sets of war crimes into a single specific story (rather than something part of history of Serbia) is really a blatant violation of WP:NPOV because it's based on a biased narrative. Individual articles Serbian war crimes in the Balkan Wars, Serbian war crimes in World War II, Serbian war crimes in the Yugoslav Wars could be a useful addition to the existing articles and could be cross-linked elsewhere. This, OTOH, can not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Carlson[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any serious claim of notability for this "cinematography film teacher and author". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:AUTHOR. Best-selling technical author widely cited in the cinematography industry and in other books written on filmmaking and cinematography. Writes textbooks used in cinematography college courses. He worked with Warner Bros. for over 40 years and was the technical go-to guy for professional cinematographers. He wrote numerous articles for American Cinematographer and Film World, as well as served as a contributing editor for International Photographer. His "Cowboy Cookbook" is considered by the U.S. State Department as a significant representation of historical Western Americana. He has also produced and directed several documentary films. Cindamuse (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:Author with books highly regarded within his industry[47] and his expertise widely cited by peers and Scholars.[48] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11, advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test Drive College Online[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. hardly any coverage [49]. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very, very obvious advertisement. The article's creator, User:EducationToday, is a single-purpose account, and clearly displays a conflict of interest. Very few reliable sources to satify either WP:ORG or WP:WEB.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant advertising, very possibly a copyvio. 2 says you, says two 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Zara[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP, even among Internet "celebrities". Orange Mike | Talk 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the nomination rationale is completely weak and may ultimately lead to failure in this attempt because of it, I couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources other than a mention on G4's Women of the Web. Google news and books turned up nil for her name and/or website, and the references in the article itself are unreliable blogs, blogs, and more blogs. Vodello (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Cindamuse (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely self-promotional BLP lacking any reliable independent sources to establish notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 13:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The listed sources include one blog, the rest are major sites including MTV Brazil. Carol has enough notable achievements to meet wikipedia's standards. (Rhymestyle (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The vast majority of the sources do not meet WP:RS and consist mainly of social networking sites and non-notable fan type websites. Could you please expand on exactly which of her "notable achievements" meet the criteria as outlined at WP:ENT? Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable achievements? She works for MTV Brazil and was featured on G4_TV, those two are sufficient enough. Also what do you consider a major site? These sources listed on the page aren't exactly sites that go unnoticed, these are major sites. If you want to argue that the sites aren't good enough sources, then there are thousands of other wiki pages that should be up for deletion too.(98.223.177.254 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I did not use the words 'major site' as they do not have any relevance to my argument; what I referred to are reliable sites which have everything to do with notability and WP:BLP articles in general. Whatever appears in other Wikipedia articles is also irrelevant as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The issue with "her" is not so much that she is not a celebrity, becuase celebrity is controversial. The problem that keeps this from being kept is that not even a single three of the article's references have any tangible investigatory jumping-off point. Get three reliable sources, and the article might be of snowball keep standard. M'kay?--Cymbelmineer (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't MTV, G4, and Virgin Gaming reliable enough? That's three. (Rhymestyle (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per a rough consensus for deletion as well as the arguments for deletion outweighing the sole argument for retention, which was also refuted. –MuZemike 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aetiology (blog)[edit]

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

This blog seems to fail WP:WEB. I do not think that the coverage it has received meets any of the three prongs of WEB as it was trivial or appeared in other blogs. Perhaps most notable among its coverage was that Nature rated it #7 of science blogs written by scientists for the general public based on Technorati hits. But Nature only actually profiled the top five (and only put the full list online). At that time, the blog was listed as number 4,989 by Technocrati. It also received a profile on a med student blogsite hosted by WebMD, but this does not seem to be the sort of source, especially alone, that would meet WP:WEB. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 5 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) 00:01, 11 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) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete taking Novaseminary at face value. "Was mentioned in [list]" is a basic admission of not asserting notability. JJB 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep that Nature listed it 7th in its list of most used popular science blogs is notability. It's hard to think of a better source. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But the magazine didn't list it in print or in the article. The full list only appeared in an online appendix (here) to the article. It was seventh on the list based on criteria the Nature author devised using Technorati stats. The Nature article profiled the top five, not this blog. Per the actual article: "Out of 46.7 million blogs indexed by the Technorati blog search engine, five scientists' sites make it into the top 3,500. Declan Butler asks the winners about the reasons for their success." This blog was not a "winner". The Nature article's author only thought the first five were notable enough to revceive profiles or even mentions in the article. On what basis would you disagree? What about numbers 6 and 8, or number 17? Appearance alone on this list cannot be enough, can it? Novaseminary (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acey Aquino[edit]

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

I can find nothing in the MSM about this person, nor in books, nor anywere in fact. This person is just not notable mark (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Career appears to meet WP:ENT with significant roles in multiple notable (Filipino) productions. We need input from Filipino Wikipedians with access to sources not availbale online in the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aquino has had guest roles on major TV shows (see Nagsimula sa Puso) but nothing really starring. We should hold her to the entertainer guideline, and for that, she fails. The Philippines is a market of 90 Million and we should treat its stars equally with those of other large countries. When she gets a starring role, then she will rank for inclusion in Wikipedia. Until then, she's off the air. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patafunk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Patafunk

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

Fails WP: BAND, refs mainly consists of non independent, not reliable sources. Also see the EL, its mainly stuff written by the group itself. Unioneagle (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 6 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) 00:01, 12 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) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It was me who declined the speedy deletion after reading what was presented on the talk page. There is coverage in Spinner.com, a chart hit in Venezuela (see link on the talk page), and I also found a brief mention in Billboard (vol. 122, iss. 9, p. 12). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – To help with building a consensus, I'll throw my hat in with Paul Erik above. The sources are fairly slight and the band has not been noticed too much outside of their native land, but WP is meant to be an international resource. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Slowflation[edit]

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

Neologism. No evidence of notability, no external sources provided. LK (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': The term is rarely if ever used in published academic economics. This search of JSTOR's collections of published academic articles (including economics) does not find any use of it. "Stagflation" (which shows up in 4300 JSTOR articles in an analogous search) covers the condition of "slowflation." Looking ahead, I don't think the use of "slowflation" would make discussion of economic conditions more concise or clear. -- Econterms (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I came into this thinking "Delete: wikipedia is not urbandictionary". However, an idle google revealed several relatively reliable-looking lay sources out there ([50] [51] &c) and wordspy even dissects it for us: [52] so I think we can establish some notability. I don't think there can be much doubt about the accuracy of the definition because it's pretty trivial. This word may rarely pass the lips of academic economists, but - alas! - they do not have a monopoly on vocabulary; barriers to entry are low. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Righto on that last point. Didn't mean that the term needed to clear that hurdle to merit an article. Nobody wants to see human communication filtered to include only the phrasings used in economics journals. (Except maybe in some kind of grim comedy.) But the question had been raised on the talk and economics project pages whether the term was used in the academic context, and this was answerable. Judgments about notability now depend completely on these other sources. -- Econterms (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary just a dicdef at the moment. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:18, 13 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) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stagflation. The difference between "Stagflation" and "Slowflation" is subtle, basically the same principle, and the terms should be considered as part of a single article, listed under the far more recognizable name. "Slowflation" is a neologism without much of a following, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirect per Carrite. This is an unfamiliar but definitely extant neologism—just the sort of thing that an encyclopaedia user might wish to look up. We ought to have something more helpful than a redlink, but I also agree that a separate article is not justified.—S Marshall T/C 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Swamp Percussion[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable sources verifying the notability of this organization, and I wasn't able to find appropriate sources to add with my own search. Prod removed by creator with the comment, "All information has been check for accuracy by the owner of the companies, Eric Sooy," but without the addition of sources or information about the company's notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although not the original author of the article, I represent the company and have expanded and added factual references.

Teliosis (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – At this time. One of the core requirements for an article here at Wikipedia is that the subject must meet notability standards as stated; “…A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. “ I was only able to find a few articles, (5) in a Google News search, which mentioned the company and a majority of those were in trade journals. I saw no references to major contributions by the company that influenced the industry – individuals or other organizations. Sorry to say, at this point, the company is non-notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)
Comment When you cite a search, please provide a link to the search, rather than to the Wikipedia article about Google News. This lets others see what you found, and make sure your search terms were well chosen. Edison (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Toledo Blade and Drum magazines have significant coverage. One link to a promising article listed as a ref is broken, but a working convenience link is not a requirement for notability. In addition I found an article via Newsbank at the library "Black Swamp Percussion snares share of instrument market - The musical masterpieces are handmade, one at a time, in the company headquarters, which is about to move into a larger building" by Myron Kukla. The Grand Rapids Press, Sept 5, 2004, which is a 526 word newspaper article about the company. Edison (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 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) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly any third party coverage. [53]. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Queen[edit]

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

Not a notable artist in her own right. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles in the Sunday Mail (cited), Metro, and The List (reproduced on her website) mean that she is notable. She has also released two albums, one on Creeping Bent. Her previous band, Thrum, is certainly notable, even if there isn't an article here yet. Thrum has a bio and discography in Martin C. Strong's The Great Indie Discography, and half of that bio is about Monica Queen's solo career. Further coverage from the BBC, The Herald.--Michig (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Significant coverage from reliable sources. I didn't even know the subject until I saw this AFD. However, this is a weak, WP:Not notable deletion nomination that didn't do the 3 seconds of research required to instantly disprove the claim. Under, "Find Sources," above, one need only make that hard effort of clicking on 'News,' and maybe if you're feeling extra helpful, 'Books,' to see that this nomination should never have been made. Please don't clutter AFD with these in the future. Vodello (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hardly any of the results generated by looking at the 'News' or 'Books' links refer to the person that this article is about. Of those that do, most only mention her in passing. The refs provided by Michig are good ones, though. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've put more references in the article. Has significant coverage from reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scream Aim Fire Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable concert tour. fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. References serve to only advertise tour dates and do not qualify as "significant coverage in multiple independent sources" Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Nouse4aname (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete -based on the above ((find)) searches, this appears to be non-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOT#DIR as a list of shows. Abductive (reasoning) 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing to establish notability. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Woeful Platypus[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP with WP:OSE as an argument. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability per WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteThis one was more popular than the other work by this author up for AFD, and I found it mentioned in a long list of "the best" stories from that year listed in a science fiction book [54], but that passing reference does not satisfy notability. It is in the collections of a number of libraries per Google Book search. Edison (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Subterranean Press's website, which is mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.151.234 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge it, along with all the stubs under Category:Short story collections by Caitlin R. Kiernan into List of short story collections by Caitlin R. Kiernan. The short story collections are not specifically notable by themselves, but the author, Caitlín R. Kiernan, certaintly is.--Hongkongresident (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, it doesn't even have sources. Also, no claim to notability. Wikipedia is not a library catalog service. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bijapur Airport[edit]

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

No proper info about the airport Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to be an airport project that had some press coverage in 2007-2008. I haven't found anything more recent but I haven't looked especially hard either. Major and regional airports are notable. The article needs some grammar cleanup, and references, but even if it's not built yet (which appears to be the case), a major construction project could certainly be notable. This isn't the typical sort of too-soon situation. Shadowjams (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Plans for its development have received media coverage, enough to meet GNG. Sebwite (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Me' Mini Post[edit]

Hodara Real Estate Group[edit]

Scott Blasey[edit]

Jeopardy! Clue Crew[edit]

Bart Hendrikx[edit]

Adrienne Clarkson Public School[edit]

Forbes Magazine's List of The 20 Hottest Young Royals[edit]

Jovi Ware[edit]

New York Hospitals[edit]

DisTract[edit]

Maurice Jay[edit]

Jagmandar Dass Jain[edit]

Eataly[edit]

Bill C-215[edit]

Mac Bennett[edit]

Prince Mohammed bin Faisal I bin Al Hussein El-Hashemite[edit]

Angouleme archeology and history museum, Société archéologique et historique de la Charente[edit]

Dandelion Books[edit]

Jess C Scott[edit]

Shakti (2010 film)[edit]

NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches wins list[edit]

Jerome Grandsire[edit]

A. A. Alvarez[edit]

Chronicles of a Nomad[edit]

Surface Festival[edit]

Harsh Vardhan Jain[edit]

Foundation The Game[edit]

Mystery Case Files: 7[edit]

Dennis Taylor (musician)[edit]

Piecewise regression analysis[edit]

To All[edit]

Survey

Evaluate with the Deletion Policy

Correction by Yuanfangdelang

To Xxanthippe

Lorna Bennett (actress)[edit]

Frank Spangenberg[edit]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

6.5 Jonson[edit]

Gustavo Calle Gracey[edit]

Arthur P. Barone III[edit]

The Royal Bet[edit]

Deep Democracy Institute[edit]

Koopcas[edit]

The Murder of Jacob Rogers[edit]

Jixi cold noodles[edit]

Sandie Caine[edit]

Rojhat saeed[edit]

EO Products[edit]

Engineers World[edit]

Shri Ram Murti Smarak International Business School[edit]

Witney and District League 2010-11[edit]

Al Angrisani[edit]

Equivalent moment of inertia of worm and wheel[edit]

Paul Cote[edit]

Rubashkin crime family[edit]

Cruise-a-Home[edit]

Bucky Phillips manhunt controversy[edit]

Ralph "Bucky" Phillips[edit]

The orchard school[edit]

Tetrafusion[edit]

The Scarlet Letter SparkTune[edit]

Ōmuta (disambiguation)[edit]

List of dominant sovereign states and their servient territories[edit]

Bridgeburne R[edit]

Mister Jalopy[edit]

Serbian war crimes[edit]

Verne Carlson[edit]

Test Drive College Online[edit]

Carol Zara[edit]

Aetiology (blog)[edit]

Acey Aquino[edit]

Patafunk[edit]

Slowflation[edit]

Black Swamp Percussion[edit]

Monica Queen[edit]

Scream Aim Fire Tour[edit]

Tales from the Woeful Platypus[edit]

Bijapur Airport[edit]