< 20 April	22 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Douglas Weber[edit]

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

~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:ONEVENT bio of a person "notable" only for dying. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. maucho eagle 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, however BLP1E is irrelevant as this guy is dead. WP:ONEVENT applies, and is on-point, but nothing in BLP. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I wasn't thinking. Duh. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - To tell about a person that died? Inappropriate. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 10:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not inappropriate, we have many articles on people who have died. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the distinction: we have many articles on people who were notable in life and then died; we do not have many articles on people whose death itself was their primary claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly understood and agreed. I was commenting on Porchcrop's deletion reasoning that it's not appropriate to have an article about a person that has died. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, I know that there are articles about people that have died, but this article only gives the importance about a person that dies. How is that not inappropriate? Besides, it does not show any notability that conforms to WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 00:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been your reasoning for deletion. It was much better than your original reasoning. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only notable for a single event. Perhaps sourced content could be merged into the 2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Casualties section if it is deemed worthy of inclusion. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss: That is a fine idea Bill. Perhaps some sort of Ann Hodges solution can be found. Rather than deleting the poor woman, only known for being struck by a rock, she has a redirect. Dustin Douglas Weber could redirect to the section on the effects of the 311 tsunami on America. Of course he doesn't actually deserve a paragraph, those should be reserved for characters from Star Wars or Cartoons from the 1960's. But a redirect to the information is an easy solution. That he was reported on twice, worldwide, first for being lost, second for being found, the notability is obvious. And he was from the Yurok Tribe, and is listed as one of two notable people from Yurok. FX (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami#Casualties per Bill, with just enough merging (or plain addition of info) that he can be clearly identified as the man already mentioned at the very end of that section. Considered the possibility of deathifying the article (is that even a word?), but it would probably still fail WP:EVENT. Sideways713 (talk) 11:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of illegal downloading on the film industry[edit]

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

The article reads like an essay that someone wrote for class. Though it is fairly well sourced, it's not well written and just strikes me as generally unencyclopedic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:RS. If you want to help Wikipedia, improve the article, do not rush for AfD. --Reference Desker (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article solely points out the opinion of one side of the "problem", does not follow WP:NPOV at all, reads like an advertisement against filesharing and not like an encyclopaedic article and the content is covered on many other places already. mfg, OldDeath - 12:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speepy Keep - This is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Discussion about the problem of bias within the article should happen on that talk page. If there are problems, fix them. This is the wrong venue. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Just for reference, we do already have articles on Legal aspects of file sharing and Trade group efforts against file sharing.—RJH (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems biased to me. It looks like an essay. We have articles covering this topic already as OldDeath and RJH pointed out. Ce3c (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a classic example of a case study. Hartboy (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speepy Keep agree that this is a topic that deserves to be on wikipedia,and thus problems with it should focus on improving it, not getting rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.37.18 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC) — 86.183.37.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- As already said before, the content of this article has been covered in several other places already, so the contained information is redundant in any case...
  mfg, OldDeath - 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But surely it is relevant and useful to bring this information together in the one place? as the topic becomes more urgent, people will look for information on it, i think its obvious that this page will have to exist in some form or another —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.37.18 (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - See RJH's comment above. There are already 2 articles covering the topic (and several others that do also deal with it in one or two sections). We should focus on improving them instead of creating an other redundant one on the same subject... Also, in its current form the article violates several Wikipedia rules (WP:NOTCASE, WP:NPOV, text style not encyclopaedic). mfg, OldDeath - 07:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. The article does need some work though.Smallman12q (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not necessarily speedy, if only for the purpose of preservation. This page is independent of the others, and not technically a content fork. It may well be redundant to several other pages, and wants a better title. Whether some or all of the content ought to be merged to another page, I have no opinion on; but this isn't a deletion issue. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Trade group efforts against file sharing, cutting the OR and essayizing. Else delete as essay, OR. (Typo corrected in preceding comment.) Sandstein 06:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was disambiguate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical language[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, unreferenced, and lacks clear focus on a single topic. Diego Moya (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect somehwere A graphical language is a language that uses graphic constructs lexically, like a written language (pictographic, most obviously, but any written language, since they all use graphemes) 65.94.45.160 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Visual language per the existing suggestion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What content do you feel could be merged? Almost all of it is unreferenced, and frankly it reads as an essay about language theory in general; there's really few content specific about graphical language. And a Chinese web page being an example of graphical language? A few recognizable visual characteristics in links don't constitute a language IMHO. So what would you place at Visual language and how? Diego Moya (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into a disambiguation page: "Graphical language can refer to: ▪ a computer language for creating or describing computer graphics / ▪ a visual language. --Lambiam 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical language should be specifically for formal languages used on computers Gmstanley (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Graphical language" should be separate, focusing on formal, graphical modeling languages used on computers. These are common, for instance for workflows - reference the BPMN article in Wikipedia. They are also used in monitoring and control, as in the GDA reference cited, or in the "Sequential Function Chart" article in Wikipedia (based on the earlier GRAFCET graphical language, used for PLCs), or in the graphical language used as cited in the Wikipedia article on LabVIEW. While the current "graphical language" page is currently a bit of a hodgepodge that needs focus, it still differs from the "visual language" article. The "visual language article is even more of a hodgepodge of psychology, art, etc., focusing on how humans interact with each other.

There's a visual programming language article for that already.Diego Moya (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that page until now. That could cover some cases. I would say that many graphical languages

used on computers are not really visual programming languages, though. To me, a real "programming language" generally emphasizes specification of a series of steps - it is basically procedural (although some of those procedures are what to do to respond to events, etc.). But some modeling languages are truly declarative. That is, they don't specify steps. They are typically a model of some aspect of the real world or perhaps a computer application. As an example, consider a graphical language that allows someone to represent a fault tree graphically. That's a completely declarative representation of how faults propagate, e.g., how various root causes of something like loss of coolant in a nuclear reactor propagate to cause the loss of coolant, and then propagate further leading to release of radioactive gas, etc. That model stands by itself independent of its usage. It could be used for prediction -- e.g., mark a valve as stuck, and follow the implications to see what will happen. Conversely, hypothesize an event like loss of coolant, and trace back through the diagram to figure out what might have caused it. Or, estimate the future probabilities of events based on the probabilities of failures of each of the root causes. The point is that different "engines" treat the same graphical model differently, even though it's the same model. It's up to an "engine" to decide what to do with that model. (I've been involved with graphical languages that make multiple uses of given graphical models.) A workflow representation like BPMN is a representation of something that is essentially procedural, so might be considered a graphical programming language, but not all graphical languages are like that. Gmstanley (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gmstanley, that detailed commentary is interesting but should be placed at the article's talk page. What we're trying to determine is what to do with the current article's contents - is there anything that could be saved, or should we start again from a blank page in the direction you propose? Diego Moya (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a plausible search term, so this title shouldn't be a redlink. I'll go with disambiguate per Lambiam.—S Marshall T/C 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I'm also think now that disambiguate is the best idea so far. Referenced content about programming languages can be merged to visual programming language. Diego Moya (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. Although not meriting its own article, the term is still a plausible search term and should be used to help users find what they want. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 13:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Austen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Minor League Baseball player who hasn't played since 2009. (Baseball-Reference Minors Adam Penale (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem like much has changed sicne the first Keep result that should justify a deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the last AfD got it right. Venezuelan Winter League Pitcher of the Year really isn't a big enough an honor. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor leaguer. The non-admin closure in the last AFD was an incorrect application of the guideline. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WPBB/N as a baseball player. Fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE coverage. A career minor leaguer who is now out of baseball is WP:Run-of-the-mill. —Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thambynayagam[edit]

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

Scientist whose claim of notability as an academic is unsupported. I cannot find any significant coverage of his work in reliable sources. Article claims he is "best known" for a book which was published this month, which is dubious. Note: article was originally a WP:BLPPROD, but the tag was removed indicating that it was "invalid"; while the article does contain external links, all of these are to primary sources (i.e., his works) and support none of the actual biographical prose of the article, so ultimately this is an unsourced BLP. Kinu ^t/_c 22:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 gnews hit. gscholar reveals being a co-author but no evidence of significant peer recognition to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Libstar, little on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gremlins 3 (not yet released)[edit]

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

Unsourced, not MOS, potential BLP problems Jasper Deng (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. This future film not only has not been released, it hasn't even been filmed ... or hired a director and cast yet ... or even finished being written, according to this article. As-yet-unreleased films normally should not have articles until they begin principal photography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Bad article writing, no sourcing, on a non-encyclopedic topic that discusses possible future event that has no significant importance, i lost count but i think thats 5 reasons any 2 of which (sometimes less) would be grounds for deletion in my opinion alone Moneya (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudage[edit]

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

Unsupported neologism with no agreement on meaning or general usage. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced neologism, inconsistent use online. Hairhorn (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a new term to serve as adage or idiomatic warning of how the law of unintended consequences occurs in the emerging Cloud Computing arena, whenever a single point of failure causes a cascade of outages in down stream systems and business operations. I am attempting to cite a news reference of how a recent Amazon outage caused just such a a cascade of failures at other businesses. Also discussing this term with a scholarly contact to evaluate and possibly add to their nomenclature on Cloud Computing. If they agree, then there will be a scholarly citation to cite. Lastly the the conventional definition of Cloudage as mass of clouds or cloudiness is a pictoral allegory of the potential storm caused by a Cloud Computing Infrastructure as a Service failure. Cloudage bdtps (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting your friend in academia to agree with you is not a "scholarly citation". Google shows a widely varied use of this term online, also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hairhorn (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suffers from all the problems typical of neologisms. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO. If the term ever gains traction, the topic can be added to Cloud computing. -Atmoz (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Emerging Sciences[edit]

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

Online journal started just this month. Too young to be notable yet. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too early. I wish commercial spammers would not waste our time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:NJournals. I don't think the indexing listed is enough to convey notability (Google scholar indexes anything on the web that resembles a scientific paper, for instance) and there's nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable --Reference Desker (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Southern Adventist University. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Adventist University School of Journalism and Communication[edit]

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

Southern Adventist University is certainly notable, this individual department? Not so much. Speedy deletion declined under school exemption. Thus, I nominate this article for 'deletion and perhaps a redirect to the main article if the powers that be so choose... BelloWello (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Southern Adventist University. There is so little content left in this article (after deletions of extensive content from the school's catalog) that it should be easy to do the merge. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ORG not met to justify separate. article. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Southern Adventist University per Metropolitan90 and nominator's suggestion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melisende of Tripoli[edit]

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

Speedy A7 declined. No cited claim of notability; she died in a convent with no indication of an influence on history. No hits on Google Scholar; hits on Google Books are a Wikipedia echo or mostly for the aunt or passing mentions of existence. Wtshymanski (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historians such as Runciman write about her and so she is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her influence on history (while admittedly somewhat slight) is in fact noted in the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator Some examples would really help - Google Books turns up mostly Melisende of Jerusalem, the aunt. But if her marriage never came about and she died in a convent, how much influence could she have had? --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, her parents were among the highest crusader nobility. Her mother Hodierna was the daughter of one king, and related to three others, and her father Raymond II and brother Raymond III were Counts of Tripoli (and were related to the kings of France and various other French dynasties). Okay, so what, what does that make Melisende...it makes her very interesting to the Byzantine emperor, who liked to consider the crusader states as his protectorates. If she had married him, he could have exerted his influence in Tripoli, which was much closer to Jerusalem. Instead the emperor married the princess of Antioch, which may have been better from Jerusalem's point of view, but the count of Tripoli was still insulted. He attacked Cyprus, a Byzantine island, which had also been attacked before, from Antioch, and was later conquered by crusaders and turned into a crusader kingdom. (This is all inter-related, of course.) Meanwhile, since the emperor married into the princely family of Antioch, Antioch ended up as essentially a Byzantine province. Jerusalem was able to remain independent, more so than it likely would have if the emperor had married Melisende. Jerusalem still depended on Byzantium for military and financial support, but it could request this as an equal partner, not a vassal. Tripoli also remained independent, and Raymond III was one of the major players in the history of Jerusalem in the late 12th century. If Melisende married the emperor the history of all the crusader states would have been very different. There is another note in the article that either she or her mother were loved "from afar" by Jaufre Rudel, and Edmond Rostand used her as the main character of a play. As for Google, I can't currently read the one result I'm getting on Google Scholar (but I can check it in a few days), while Google Books has a couple of dozen useful mentions. So, as I said, her influence is somewhat slight, in the sense that she is more important for what she didn't do than for what she did, but this event had a large and long-lasting impact on the crusader states and Byzantium, and wouldn't it be useful to know more about one of the women central to it? Adam Bishop (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds a little speculative and crystal-ballish; maybe Hitler's assassin died of measles at age 7. I suppose the question boils down to "Does she get significant coverage by the people writing histories of the era?" We don't normally list people for things they might have done, only for what they did. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even aside from the unecessary reductio ad Hitlerum, that's hardly the same - if Hitler had two possible assassins, about whom we knew quite a lot, and one of them ended up being chosen to assassinate him, it would still be interesting to know why the other one wasn't chosen. If Melisende died of measles at age 7 and had absolutely no influence on the politics of four separate states, then no, of course we wouldn't have an article about her. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yet another nomination to delete an article on a medieval personage based on an internet search. When will people realise that the internet is not omniscient? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator - Did Runciman write anything substantial about this person? Since she died young in a convent, she can't have had much influence on events. Google Scholar produces exactly 1 hit and it's an article about mosaics, not about the subject of this article. If it's not notable enough for the Internet, is it notable enough for Wikipedia? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Google Books preview of "A History of the Crusades: The kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East, 1100-1187" shows one page discussing this individual, mostly discussing her non-marriage and early death. The preview I can see is only of page 359, at the end of which she's "fading away". --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, so what? Crusade scholarship does not begin and end with Runciman. The article is insufficiently sourced, but that can be fixed. "Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative" by Natasha R. Hodgson would be a good source, she talks about Melisende for a few pages. There are a few more recent histories of the crusades than Runciman (by Riley-Smith, Mayer, Richard, Phillips, Tyerman, etc etc), they may also have some info. Of course, everything that is known about her comes from William of Tyre and John Kinnamos, I think, so all the secondary sources say pretty much the same thing. But I can attempt to improve the article when I get a chance. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If a noted and respected specialist in the era gives her only part of a page in a 5-volume history, doesn't that indicate the microscope has to be turned up pretty high to even resolve this person's influence? This is not a specialist Wiki on the history of the Crusades. If all the modern scholars are relying on the same two primary sources, there's not going to be any more details. I've been having a great deal of trouble with the notion of "notability" on the Wikipedia over the last several weeks - it appears in practice to mean something different from what I had interpreted it to mean. I thought my difficulty was confined to subjects on which I thought I knew a little, but it appears to be the same on subjects where I have no knowledge or interest. This discussion is illuminating. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta MacGlashan[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician, unsourced since 2007. Google News search finds nothing significant, just mentions in routine reporting about county business. MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - subject of article has 770 hits from 1994 on. Most are behind a pay wall, therefore I cannot say whether any are sufficient enough to be considered "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I would have no objection to a redirect to Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, and in fact that might be more appropriate than outright deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per copious news hits shown by RightCowLeftCoast above. Paywalls suck, but they're a fact of life. The question is whether independent, reliable, third party sources exist, and they clearly do here. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in terms of notability. this current elected official has at least 770 hits. The article could be significantly expanded if that's the issue. This seems to be part of a series of clean up in Sacramento County Board of Supervisors articles, noting this article's nomination for deletion and the Susan Peters (politician) article. It may or may not be better to consolidate all the officials into one article, rather than have some articles on half of the existing officials and none on the other half (the ones being nominated for deletion currently). 08OceanBeach^S.D. 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no systematic cleanup was intended; I found them both while working on the backlog of unsourced BLPs. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad then. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:26, 13 April 2011 (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 20:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As 08Ocean Beach SD noted above, I nominated two articles about Sacramento County supervisors at the same time. At the other discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Peters (politician), there is some sentiment developing that all the members of this county board of supervisors should be merged into the article Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Is there any support for that approach here? I think whatever is decided about one of these entries should also be done for the other, because they are very comparable in the amount of coverage they have received. I probably should have linked them, but I found them at different times. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see using that approach here, myself. Carrite (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Since the Susan Peters article was closed as "Keep" this biography should probably be kept as well. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence and pregnancy[edit]

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

While the article is properly referenced with reliable sources, it is an essay and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion on Talk:Domestic_violence, it was discussed that this was acceptable content for a separate article as well as a subsection of the greater Domestic Violence page Cshaase (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the discussion on Talk:Domestic_violence, I agree that the Domestic violence and pregnancy article should be kept, and I read the Discussion page also (Talk:Domestic_violence_and_pregnancy). I think the concept is good. I don't think the presentation is neutral, and it has too many directions in one article. It seems well-referenced, although I did not check the references. It needs copy editing and cleanup. Dikonped (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You may be right, but what do you mean by "...it has too many directions in one article..."? --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the suggestions for improvement but wouldn't Talk:Domestic_violence be a better forum rather than the deletion page? I'd like to improve the article so it is as neutral and finished as it can be, but it needs to be established that it should be kept and not deleted Cshaase (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup, but phenomenon is notable and article doesn't appear to be drawing any original conclusions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Probably an encyclopedia-worthy topic, but this is a polemic original essay in current form. Someone needs to brandish the NPOV sawzall... Carrite (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Could you point out the polemical passages? I'm not seeing them here. --Danger (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article adds substantial content to the subject of domestic violence. Can someone elaborate on how this would better fit the NPOV? MonicaHe (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when is "needs clean-up" a reason to delete an article? I don't see any evidence of original research here. Virtually every sentence is properly sourced. If there are POV issues, those can be addressed without putting a torch to the entire work. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with others that it is just an essay and has serious NPOV issues. Could potentially be a good topic for an article but Wikipedia would be quite clearly better off without the content in its current form.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are the concerns being raised about NPOV issues about content or tone? Cshaase (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own concerns are primarily tone. Carrite (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What parts specifically? Cshaase (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author appears to have properly cited the sources utilized. It would be helpful if you all could provide clear examples of specific NPOV violations within this article as opposed to broad/generalized statements.Amr0316 (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Kaldari took the words off of my screen. If the nom or commenters could point out specific passages that need POV work, that would be very helpful for article development. Danger (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not original research, as it is cited very carefully and from reliable sources. The article is about a sensitive and controversial topic, making the information the article presents all the more valuable to Wikipedians. As long as the author maintains a neutral point of view, it should not be a problem for anyone to post information on a controversial topic. MariaNunez (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive reference list and an excellent start to an under-recognized topic. Also, I checked the discussion page for Domestic Violence and I appreciate the open stance and the author's willingness to discuss the article. Kaldari has a point, if there are POV issues, let's address the specific areas of the passage without removing the page completely. Slin2264 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does not appear to be a personal essay. The article is adequately supported by what appear to be reliable resources, and does not seem to reflect any personal feelings on the part of the wiki contributor. I agree that it would be helpful if questions about the article could be raised more specifically to support the aforementioned claims about tone and personal opinion. Leejohnson898 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is substantive work that is extensively cited with reputable sources. It is not original research, and simply because the topic is perhaps contentious not does automatically make the wiki contributor biased. Moreover, editing the tone of the page can be done without actually taking it down. Colleenfugate (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, there's definitely been a lot of a positive feedback on this article. Those who are suggesting this article is violating NPOV policy needs to provide some concrete examples of biased views. If there are any, I'm sure the author would be happy to make those changes. Personally, I don't think there will need to be major changes made to this article. Also, Talk:Domestic_violence obviously shows that the author has received feedback saying she had enough content for this page to stand alone. Looking at the extensive content and references cited, I would have to agree and back up the author. MonicaHe (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is cited with legitimate sources and is substantially important to the topic of domestic violence. I don't think it is necessary to delete the article, but rather suggestions be made. and edits could be made accordingly. --Yk12 (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic of this article is unique to Wikipedia, and looking at the author's extensive source list, it would hard to claim it a personal essay. The number of credible sources additionally demonstrates its important to the broader topic of domestic violence and thus a legitimate page addition. Mschweickart (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)mschweickart[reply]

Perhaps you mean that the topic is not unique to Wikipedia? There are lots of articles with the same topic when the Google Scholars are queried. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you bother to read through the article you see there are sources to statements showing that people have done studies on this, and the reasons why it happens. Dream Focus 16:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep AfD is not cleanup, and I don't see anyone questioning the notability of the topic. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The topic itself has been covered by numerous books and journal articles, including medical manuals and scientific studies. I think it's safe to say this is worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia.—RJH (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Keep editors above convince me that there should be no difficulty deciding to keep this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article does not appear to have created original research, but instead uses valid sources, including secondary sources, to support what is a vital topic of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabuiles8 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. Even if it was a mess, it looks fine now. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very relevant and notable subject.Nirame (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very much so notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Mansfield[edit]

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

Cannot find independant reliable sources. Not indication of notability and that this person meets WP:ARTIST. France3470 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found to indicate notability. (The article was created in July 2010 so could have been deleted as an unreferenced BLP.) AllyD (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I decided against a Wikipedia:BLPPROD per the statement under 'Nominating': "Consider using another deletion process if you do not believe the article meets notability guidelines". I was under the impression that AFD was the right process as the speedy was already contested, however I could have misinterpreted this statement.-France3470 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya ganeshan[edit]

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

No reliable sources, none found via Google (a blogger should be easy to find online), no indication of notability. Was prodded, prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is currently unsourced, and thus eligible for BLP-prod deletion in a week. I searched and can't find any reliable sources. In fact, I don't see any sourced related to a "famous comedic blogger" with this name at all, reliable or otherwise. The description is almost unimportant enough to qualify this for a speedy deletion; however, there's no real harm in letting this run for 7 days. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any coverage of this person. There are a few hits for an academic/software engineer in the UK by the same name but I don't think it's the same person. Hut 8.5 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this person. I noticed this deletion discussion when I noticed the article's creator attempting to blank this discussion, which seems to be a sign that no sources are forthcoming. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article on a non-notable person. (a search using the Tamil name also turned up nothing)--Sodabottle (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. if sodabottle doesnt know him, nobody would. --CarTick (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CrossFire (online PC game)[edit]

the game's official website is http://cf.qq.com/ check it out, and give the page back... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.45.3.50 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsatisfactory assertion of ntoability for 2 years now. Only one secondary source at http://ol.2u.com.cn/1_60861.html which is sufficient to summarize the game at Z8Games and other publisher's articles. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - I will find sources, this game has been played at a competitave level so some sources should be around. Skullbird11 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, no notability. Google gives various hits, but those I checked looked more like blogs or game forums than reliable sources. Huon (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Huon and Marasmusine's reasonings. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Moret[edit]

I nominate this article for deletion due to poor notability of this scholar. Please see WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dybabdulwadud (talk • contribs) 2011/03/26 00:31:16

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar does not verify the claims in the article; his so-called masterwork, "considered to be an important publication on South Italian vase painting," has been cited only 29 times, and nothing else turns up at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oedipe, la Sphinx et les Thébains has been cited 46 times. According to Oliver Taplin, Moret's account of the internal language of vase painting in L'Ilioupersis dans la céramique italiote, "has become the dominant orthodoxy in Francophone scholarship..." [1] So, meets WP:ACADEMIC.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough there, I will change my mind if more (good) refs turn up. Szzuk (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ethico. Seems clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Family Association state affiliates[edit]

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

None appear to be independently notable. WP:NOTDIR/WP:LINKFARM applies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom CTJF83 18:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BelloWello (talk) 08:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - while the national organziation may be notable, local councils or state affiliates are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian. Agree that locals are not independently notable. The few tidbits of content worth keeping should be in the main article American Family Association, if they aren't already. This is essentially just a list. — Becksguy (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not individually notable. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Agarwal[edit]

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

I can find no independent third-party sources to help establish the notability of this person. The article as it stands now does not, in my view, establish the notability with any of the references listed, and I find anthologies to not be an indication of notability. I also believe that nothing in the article construes importance or significance, but I did not feel comfortable placing an A7 tag on it, but rather wanted to get community consensus as to whether this person is notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. ukexpat (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. --CarTick (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Seems like an autobio from a seemingly unknown person. Not enough references to keep the article going, and according to ArcAngel it doesn't seem like they're ever going to be. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 07:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The David Vetter Show[edit]

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

Play appears to fail the GNG. Google failed to provide anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment There was also a contested PROD back in 2008. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable play; no evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I initially thought this was a blatant hoax but I guess it is just a play written for a drama course. Not even a single source can be found. It fails WP:GNG. Nimuaq (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether to move it to D&AD Awards and shift its focus is an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D&AD[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable charity (fails WP:ORG...specifically WP:NONPROFIT). I can find no significant, secondary source coverage of D&AD on Google, and the only links the article provides are D&AD's website. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The D&AD awards are a very well established competition and with a woldwide reputation in the design industry. Google books shows many potential sources, such as [2] and [3]. -France3470 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make sure, you do know that I'm nominating this article about the charity organization as non-notable. The awards I could find plenty of sources for...it's the charity behind them, which this article is about, that I think has not received the required significant, secondary source coverage. I would honestly have no problem with someone creating the article D&AD Awards (which is currently redlinked in the D&AD article)...I just think that the D&AD charity fails WP:ORG. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I meant to add that the awards certainly outshine the charity in terms of notable. However, after considerable searching of my own, I too find a serious lack of sources. (Which admitttedly has me rather dumbfounded.) I still feel though that there should be enough sources for at least a stub. These sources might do the trick, [4], [5]. -France3470 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the best place for what information can be referenced about the charity would be better placed in a section of the "D&AD Awards" article rather than this article. In my opinion, this mostly comes down to the charity's not being notable enough to warrant its own article. At the least I would delete this article, salvage any content that can be referenced, put it into hopefully a newly created article about the D&AD Awards, and then create a redirect at this title. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article covers both the organisation and its awards. Sources are easy to find: here's another example. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to D&AD Awards, which seems to be what is notable, and rewrite accordingly. Sandstein 06:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Gamers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No references independent of the subject, fails general notability as well as notability for web sites. The rules for referencing and removing un-referenced material were significantly strengthened since the article's 1st AFD 5 years ago. Andrevan@ 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the first AFD "The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers". While not the most notable website on the planet, they are at least considered notable enough to be quoted by the people distributing games. Not much has changed since the first AFD which netted a keep and provided some good rationale. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —RJH (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these box cover references used in the article (several links to MobyGames scans of indie adventure game covers) do not work for the following reasons: 1) They are self-published and self-distributed by the game developers themselves and therefore lack the reliability required, 2) More importantly, the references themselves are trivial and do not provide context or information about the subject. 3) Finally, MobyGames itself is not a reliable source - it's a user-contributed database, so the references there are unusuable. Quoting: ...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth Actually, quite a lot has changed since 2006 regarding the enforcement of the verifiability policies. Andrevan@ 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability does not expire. In addition, the last AfD had additional references that need to be added:[6], [7], [8], and some hard copy reviews:
- Article on adventuregamers in PC Master, a Greek gaming magazine. (August 2002)
- Featured in the TV program GameQuest on the Dutch channel Veronica. (December 2000)
- Featured in "Webtips: De 1019 Beste Websites Verzameld" (2000, Issue #1) among large commercial sites such as GameCenter and PC Gameworld.
- Screenshot of Adventure Gamer featured in "English Quest 2", an Australian secondary school textbook. The site is used as an example to encourage students to think about the construction of effective web pages. (September 2000, John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd., tentative print run 20000 copies)
- Listed in the bibliography of "Ecrire Pour Le Jeu: Techniques Scenaristiques Du Jeu Informatique Et Vidéo" by Emmanuel Gardiola, (June 2000, Editions DIXIT)

Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a copious amount of references, which would certainly meet the WP:WEB requirements. However, they are not currently used in the article, and I am unable to obtain the full text of any of these international references. Are you? Also, I think those web links are a lot tougher to defend on a reliability basis, don't you? Andrevan@ 04:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found the following at Google Books. I am not putting these forth as material for our general notability guideline, as they are not significant coverage of AG. However, they are instances of published books citing the AG website. Is this comparable to the importance of a scientific paper being judged on the number of other papers that cite it? If so, how many would be enough for notability? [9][10][11]. The web links summarized by Turlo above I do not consider to be reliable secondary sources. The journals could do with further investigation. At the very least, AG should be mentioned somewhere in this encyclopedia even if its not a standalone article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get uneasy when the first reference provided to establish notability in a thread turns out to be an article from the original site [12]. Then when I don't easily find chat such as blogs or forums ie non-RS, I am left wondering if this is an inappropriate website for a wikipedia page or just difficult to source? It is my hope that it is the latter.Tetron76 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - it has been referred to and mentioned in various sources, but I think it doubtful that they add up to significant coverage in reliable sources. However, I can't say I've seen all the offline sources, so I can't say for sure there isn't enough there. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I can't endorse the use of the paper references listed above until it is explained how significant they are. Too many times I've seen coverage described as "featured" when it's actually just one paragraph, or just a screenshot, or slapped on a coverdisk. The number of times the site itself has been cited is compelling though, so no prejudice against recreation should significant coverage be established. Marasmusine (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Turlo, who wrote a Keep opinion above, has left Wikipedia and probably will not be responding to this AFD. Andrevan@ 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Tetron76's web links don't look useful but his offline sources by their description look like "significant coverage". Since I, like the nom, can't read them I'll concede that they may not be. However, for the time being I'm going to go with "when in doubt, don't delete". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Turlo, not Tetron76. Per WP:BURDEN I don't think this is the proper reasoning. Andrevan@ 01:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I got them mixed up. As far as WP:BURDEN goes, that really addresses what goes in the article more so then whether or not the article should exist. It's the responsibility of the editor who wants to put something "in" an article to provide a source for it per WP:BURDEN. However, when we are talking about whether or not an article should exist, that's covered by another kind of source which may or may not be currently used in the article. That's where WP:BEFORE comes in. An editor who wants to nominate an article for deletion should first make sure that such sources don't exist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to verify that any of the sources referenced by Turlo above actually exist. And if they do, perhaps the coverage is not a "feature" but merely a trivial mention. Although you're right that BURDEN doesn't mention deletion, BEFORE doesn't say what to do if we've tried to find reliable sources and failed. At what point do we say, if the sources become available, we can restore the article? Andrevan@ 03:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dr Bloefeld, I'm going to assume that it was one of your doubles that made that second "keep" !vote. Even with that and considering the length of time this has been open, consensus leans slightly to the "keep" side. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and Evil (film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFILM; no Google News results other than IMDb. The sources currently in the article are not known to be reliable sources, and in particular the reviews are not by nationally known critics. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article when I created Adam and Eve the song by Elvis which is the reason why I see you've nominated this as you were the admin who closed the Elvis song as a redirect. You foolishly redirected to List of Elvis songs rather than to Spinout (album) and failed to merge the information that was given. This does look like a crappy B teen horror movie I'll agree but I think its borderline notable. It does star a few notable actors like Erica Cerra for example and it is covered in the Hollywood Reporter newspaper and on the Horror Channel website, run by CBS, certainly a credible source. Obviously a fairly recent B horror film isn't going to get much coverage in google books anyway... I'd go with Weak keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This article describes the same film as Halloween Camp 2: Scream If You Wanna Die Faster, which is the title in the UK. Depending on the decision, they should both be deleted, or that one turned into a redirect to this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2011 (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) 00:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Lear's Fool 15:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on Google [13] and found only the Beyond Hollywood one. That made me think weak keep since it looked promising, but then I started looking places like Rotten Tomatoes and found pretty much nothing. I proceeded on to the references in the article and came to the following conclusions:

Reference 2 is unverifiable (I can't find anything at where the link takes me)
References 3, 6, 7, and 8 look unreliable (they may be reliable, but they certainly don't have that feel, nor have I heard of them as being reliable sources)
Reference 4 (the CBS/Horror Channel one) is trivial
Reference 5 is a reliable site, but the site doesn't match the referenced content (I'm seeing a big "No reviews yet...", so where on the site is it criticized)

To me, this leaves reference 1 as the only really good looking source, since reference 9 I find it very hard to take seriously when it says in part "If the movie was toilet paper I would use it to wipe my ass as I give this piece of shit ½ star". In short, I have to agree with the nominator that the sources are not known to be reliable, leaving me with a final decision to !vote delete. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with Ks0stm (talk · contribs)'s analysis of sources, all but the last. As a printed book Ref 9 seems just enough to tip the scale. Colorful language is not a reason to discount the source. I admit bias towards keeping well-documented content on works of art - there is no harm. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, I don't discount it because of colorful language in itself...if I did that I would have to discount myself in real life on occasion. While I do find it very hard to take a movie review phrased like that seriously (it seems quite a bit below professionalism), I mostly discount it (and I regret not making this clear in my first comment) because at three sentences, especially with one of them being the one I quoted, I find the source rather trivial in its coverage like reference 4. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The cited sources usually have a fairly informal style, perhaps because it is hard to write serious reviews of B-grade horror movies. Most of the reviews are several paragraphs long. Searches in Wikipedia on "Beyond Hollywood" and "Popcorn Pictures" shows they are quoted quite often. I don't know enough about the genre to know if these sites or the others would be considered authorities about the genre, but cumulatively there has been a lot written about the film by different people, with at least one source in print. My "weak keep" opinion is because I am willing to give it the benefit of doubt given the diversity of sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You already said that at the top. =P Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may be an awful B grade movie, but it is notable enough to have an article, and the article is actually relatively good. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Marasmusine (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Country Entertainment[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Bat Country Entertainment" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Non-notable, no sources, just a small indie looking for promotion. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was officially formed a couple months ago, nothing notable about them yet. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. For potential counter-argument -- notability WP:NOTINHERITED from "veteran video game [people]". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Anthony Gore[edit]

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

Non-notable, no sources actually mentioning James A Gore instead of his brother Cedric, and even for Cedric no significant coverage. Claim of award lacks verifiable source that doesnt even show up on archive. Claim of use by fortune 500 companies not supported by citation. Article subject appears to be the author. v/r - T P 15:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible Gore's company is notable, but as notability is not inherited, we'd still need reliable source coverage of Gore himself to merit a standalone article. 28bytes (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was prodded with the above rationale, prod removed by author without improvement. No indication of meeting WP:BIO or the general notability guideline. Huon (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Broken links, cites that aren't broken aren't talking about him, notability is NOT established in the least. The product might be, but he isn't, and no attempt was ever made to cite him as notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain what is not verifiable. Each publication, link, and references should be considered as verifiable. The software created by the Gore brothers is still available and can be bought, reviewed, and purchased. If the LA Times, Black Enterprise, NY Times are not validation what is... (restored by Dennis Brown after 96.24.160.106 botched adding the comment)
Delete No citations to establish notability for James Gore; citations appear to establish notability for bandlink. Notability (in the Wikipedia sense) does not transfer from one subject to the other. I also came up empty on biographical sources using simple web searches. Studerby (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity autobiography. Content and cites almost entirely about "Bandlink", not Gore. "Bandlink" may have notability established, Gore has not. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also worth noting that most of the content and cites are copied directly from the Cedric Gore article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Both articles say practically nothing about their nominal subjects, and talk mainly about the technology. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Cedric Gore for deletion for the same reasons. This is its second nomination, as all the same problems as this article's were noted with it 5 years ago. Somehow that nomination wasn't passed, and nothing has occurred to make either Gore more notable in the intervening years. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ImprovementThese articles seem to being improved upon simultaneously as each corroborates a specific point in time. The facts and references are real. If a link or two does not work it doesn't mean the article isn't true. Simply means the links don't work. In fact, that is the real reason this article should be allowed and improved upon by the world. So no links are broken and the time is preserved. Jax Billione 22:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could point us to sources (they don't have to be online) that mention the article subject by name. So far we haven't found any. 28bytes (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/2381/bandlink__spyware/. Ref article in January 25, 2003 that talks about the software.
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=754453. Ref article: Tue Nov 26, 2002 9:34
http://www.norahjones.info/news.php?cod=628&art= Ref article.
www.helioscomm.com/Clienttestimonial-Javakitty.doc - Ref document.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_10_33/ai_100111529/ Ref Document.

Jax Billione 22:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgore13 (talk • contribs)

Only the last of these links even mention James Gore. And the last one is a passing mention about James Gore talking about his company, not himself. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

The article is making a few claims and validations. First, the creation of the technology warrants support hence, the first claim is supporting Cedric Gore's article. Second, it was questioned that James A Gore was never mentioned in any of the references of the Cedric Gore article. So a reference was provided to support that claim. As the article is about James A Gore, his communication about his company should be considered more of a valuable claim. Nonetheless I have cited his blog in references.

Here are a few more links that support James A Gore the company and technology he helped create.

http://www.blackenterprise.com/2003/05/01/on-the-cutting-edge/">Black Enterprise - 2003</a>

"http://www.spoke.com/info/p7i7CwY/JamesGore">Spoke</a>

"http://books.google.com/books?id=pKWNRb_3tFgC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=javakitty+media+james+gore&source=bl&ots=I_f_WYyNQI&sig=X0AVYEBXVJGZZ-l2HqTn3gaBfwk&hl=en&ei=8qSxTduWDY-w0QHauKiiCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=javakitty%20media%20james%20gore&f=false">Books Google</a>

"http://business.highbeam.com/company-profiles/info/c2603252/javakitty-media-inc">Business.Highbeam</a>

"http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2680005/On-the-cutting-edge-who.html">Goliath</a>

"http://www.docstoc.com/docs/63177667/All-Record-Labels-in-Chicago">Docstoc</a>

Blog post of James A Gore. http://jamesagore.blogspot.com/ Jax Billione 16:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment Those of these sources most closely resembling reliable sources are re-posts of the one discussed by Escape Orbit above. The other are trivial one-line mentions, directory entries, user-submitted content or even his own blog, none of which constitute significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Huon (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jgore13, please sign your posts (not the edit summary) with ~~~~. It's OK if you also include your nickname "Jax Billione" but your posts should nonetheless have a proper ~~~~ signature that links to your talk page. This makes it easier for other editors to communicate with you. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after extensive cleanup, this still reads more like a company brochure than an encyclopedia article and it's clear that the author is either Mr. Gore himself or someone closely related. More relevant to this debate is the fact that the few references are focused on the product, not the individual and there's no sign of reliable coverage of significant depth about Mr. Gore. Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~no consensus~~. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Straw[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced, promoyionally written campaign biography for a would-be Congressional candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and the GNG. Advertising space may be purchased elsewhere Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "advertising space" when it comes to someone seeking public office is nonsense. You'll have to delete them all if using a criterion like that. The Wikipedia:Deletion_policy does not mention "advertising" as a reason for deletion of political articles. It is clearly not spam. Please review the policy and choose which one you are basing this deletion on. I cannot see any that fit, and therefore I am changing to ~~Keep~~.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)— 24.7.248.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate and no other claim of notability is made outside of his political activism. Cullen328 (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you have mentioned WP:POLITICIAN. The primary notability criterion is cited there as being, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." His exploratory committee announcement was covered in two of the three largest newspapers in the district, as mentioned in the article. The article in the Goshen News was on the front page of the paper. That's not a random or insignificant mention, and indicates notability. It was covered in the Elkhart Truth and Goshen News (newspapers), WNDU-TV, and WFRN.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fail because he has indicated (as noted in the newspaper articles cited) that he will make his announcement after the sitting Democratic representative, Joe Donnelly, announces his U.S. Senate bid, if he does so. Would suggest that this article remain until that happens, which Donnelly said last week would be "a couple of weeks." It would be poor Wikipedia form to delete this and then have to reinstate it. If the article needs some cleaning up in the meanwhile, well do some research and do so.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that he has already been elected to regional office in the New Zealand Green Party. It would also be worth noting that Christie_Vilsack also formed an exploratory committee and has apparently never run for office before. Compare the notability of her being the wife of a politician with the things the subject of this deletion debate has done. Neither have held office in the United States except for Straw's precinct election and 2010 delegate selection for state convention. Either both need to be deleted or neither. They are both currently "testing the waters."--24.7.248.248 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comparing this article to the one on Christie Vilsack is a perfect example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a classic example of arguments to avoid in deletion debates. We don't keep one poor article because other poor articles may exist on Wikipedia. Instead, we go on to find those other poor articles about non-notable topics and delete them also as needed. If that particular article on Christie Vilsack doesn't meet our standards, nominate it for deletion and we will discuss its merits then. As for the claim that the subject of this article is notable because various newspapers have covered his possible candidacy, that argument goes against well-established consensus. Countless candidates get press coverage, but they are not considered notable by Wikipedia standards unless and until they are elected to high office, or if they are notable for reasons unrelated to their political candidacies. These unelected candidates can be covered in articles about the specific political race, where all candidates for that particular office are given due weight. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP editor commenting so extensively above is functioning as a single purpose account whose edits are so far devoted to Andrew Straw's biography. Given that the IP address is located in or near South Bend, Indiana, I hereby request that the IP editor disclose whether or not the editor has a conflict of interest in this matter. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to find that many of the people interested in this are from St. Joe and Elkhart Counties. There is a connection with you and the Sierra Club. Point?--You have already stated you want to delete. I am making edits to the original article, which I did not start, to show notability. If you want to revert the edits and remove references to make it less referenced (and notable) to justify your Delete... It is always easier to just say delete rather than engaging with the article and helping it along, which is what I am doing. I am enjoying this, and intend to follow it. This will be 1/2 of one of the few open seats next year, if Rep. Donnelly moves on to Senate.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note- 24.7.248.248, you appear to have !voted twice; I have struck the upper vote. I have 'commented out' the bipolar text in the article; while he may be, and may be open about it, it is considered defamatory unless sourced (and a violation of WP:BLP); please do not restore it without citation. Dru of Id (talk) 07:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Straw was published in the Goshen News several months ago stating he is bipolar in an article on the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. He also lists it on his committee's Facebook page. Makes sense that we have that info here.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. I thought for sure I saw it on his page before. It's gone.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it wasn't in the Goshen News. It was in the Elkhart Truth, a larger paper.^[1] In fact he is not listed there as being bipolar. My bad. There are lots of sites that mention him having it, though, as a Google of Andrew Straw and bipolar shows. I'll leave it commented out.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see how I did that here; some of the search results are Dr. Andrew Straw at CalTech's Dickinson lab doing research with fruitflies for the U.S. Air Force. Anyone unfamiliar with the candidate would not be able to identify him in images or video, and Facebook and Youtube are not reliable sources; the telemerase.org site is not independent, and while it works on bipolar issues and thus is included in the search results, I was unable to find anywhere it mentions him as bipolar. Dru of Id (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. Sorry about that.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have a question about this. Are all candidates not notable the first time they run? Do they only become notable once the mud starts flying? This is the reason I mentioned Vilsack. There has to be a standard. If you can show me a Wikipedia standard saying this sort of political article, with lots of references (I provided many) but of an exploratory committee, is not notable and worthy of deletion, I will honestly consider what you are saying and say delete too. If he does become a candidate in a couple of weeks for a U.S. House race, can we reinstate this article or does a new one have to be created? WP:POLITICIANS contains the standard, right? Should I be looking for something else, because as I said above, there doesn't even seem to be justification for a debate on it using the list there?--24.7.248.248 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Our general practice regarding all candidates who have not yet been elected is to describe them in an article about the specific campaign. In such an article, all candidates for that office are described, not just one candidate. If such an article is created for this particular race, then a redirect from Andrew Straw's name to that article would be appropriate. Such an article should present a balanced, neutral overview of the entire campaign. Newspaper articles triggered by press releases from a candidate or potential candidate are not considered independent, in-depth coverage that would establish notability. If a person is notable for other accomplishments, such as Ross Perot or Donald Trump, of course they will have an article. As for my disclosed membership in the Sierra Club, I am not sure that has any relevance to this discussion, except that I am open about disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. I am an experienced editor working on a wide range of articles, as shown on my user page. I have made exactly the same recommendation in the case of many other candidate's articles, without any regard to the political positions of the specific candidates. My editing record is clear. I again ask the IP editor to disclose any conflicts of interest. Are you a supporter of the Andrew Straw campaign? This is relevant information. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be merged with an article about that campaign, if that's the standard everyone uses on Wikipedia about political pages. It seemed to me, again from Vilsack, that what you are saying is not the standard at all. My questions to you stand. Should the Vilsack article also be deleted? We ave having a discussion here, so please answer that. If you say the Vilsack article should remain but can find nothing substantive to distinguish it from this one, maybe you should reconsider your vote. Please stick to my argument, because I am not going to respond to the WP:baiting about my location.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear IP editor, based on the information I've seen so far about Christie Vilsack, I would recommend deleting that article as well, if that article was the subject of this debate. If it can be shown that she has true notability as a literacy advocate, I might reconsider, but the article would need to be extensively rewritten. However, that article has not been nominated for deletion, but this one on Andrew Straw has. This debate is about the Straw article, not about the Vilsack article. My questions to you about any potential conflict of interest are not baiting, because I have absolutely no wish to provoke an inappropriate reaction from you. I also have no intention of reporting you to an administrator, and to date, have never reported any editor because I do not seek out conflict here. I disclose my conflicts of interest per Wikipedia policy, and expect other editors to do so as well. So, my question to you about conflict of interest stands unanswered. That you decline to answer is, in a sense, a sort of answer. By the way, please feel free to notify me on my talk page if the Vilsack article is nominated for deletion, and I will be glad to chime in there. By personal preference, I choose not to nominate articles for deletion myself. My philosophical inclination is inclusionism, although I recognize that many articles must be deleted to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia. I participate in debates about deletion nominations made by others, and recommend keeping and deleting about equally, based on the merits of each case. An uninvolved administrator will make the final decision here, and I am comfortable with what I have said during this debate. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Your undies are purple, aren't they?" You mean you don't want to discuss your undies? Then they MUST be purple. I edit with an IP because I don't care to talk about any affiliations I have. What if I am a local politician or someone who could get in trouble editing these things? If I don't respond to your baiting, leave it alone, ok? Regarding Vilsack, I happen to think you are wrong. I'm glad you found it within you to evaluate that article as a similar case, but I don't think you came to the right conclusion. Her article and this one are notable. Both testing the waters for a run for Congress, and because this race may well be an open seat, this one is probably more interesting. I also want to know if Jackie Walorski's page will be deleted or forwarded. Differentiation?--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Walorski is notable under WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Indiana state legislature and notability is not temporary. You would actually enjoy a higher level of anonymity when editing as a registered user rather than as an IP, because lots of information is available online about IP addresses. Disclosing a conflict of interest is expected of all Wikipedia editors, IP or registered. It is not necessary to disclose any personal identifying information in order to disclose a conflict of interest. I don't care at all about your real world identity. I do care if you are an active supporter of Andrew Straw. Disclosing underwear color is never expected. Coincidentally, that is a straw man argument. Cullen328 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, straw man argument. Andrew Straw. But it isn't a straw man argument because it does not set up something to be knocked down as a distraction. In fact, the insistence that I am a supporter of Straw because I will not answer your question contains a logical fallacy, and I will leave it to you to name it.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The straw man is the comparison between asking about potential COI, which is common on Wikipedia, and asking about underwear color, which is absurd and irrelevant. I never insisted you have a COI, I simply asked if you did, and pointed out that declining to answer was an answer in itself. It shows that you are unwilling to comply with an expectation we have of Wikipedia editors, but does not prove that you have a conflict of interest. Cullen328 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe this article should be kept because this man will soon announce his campaign once Joe Donnelly announces his campaign. Straw's exploratory committee has been announced and picked up through media sources. Many voters come to Wikipedia to learn about candidates. This page was made, I would assume, to let voters know who Mr. Straw is when he announced his committee and when he announces his candidacy for office. If Mr. Straw announces his campaign in a week, would this article be allowed to stay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.181.3 (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straw announced via email that Jackie Walorski's campaign is following his exploratory page. Apparently she takes it seriously enough to do so, and that is evidence of notability too.--24.7.248.248 (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns routinely follow the planning of potential opponents. This does nothing to establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourcing in article only covers subject trivially, in the context of local news coverage. Usual Gsearches less useful because of extreme commonality of the name. Coming as late as I do to this discussion, I assume that previous editors have made a more diligent search, and what shows up in the article is what there is in the way of sourcing, which is insufficient for wiki-notability. Ray^Talk 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Newtonian calculus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article, while ostensibly about the "subject" of Non-Newtonian calculus, is in actuality about a non-notable mathematics text book Non-Newtonian Calculus, written by Grossman (the primary author of the article as well) and Katz. This book, published in the 1970s, receives only 19 Google scholar citations. Of these, five are self-citations. The "reviews" referenced in the article—those that actually are reviews—are mostly of the kind that any reliably published serious mathematics textbook would have. MathSciNet and Zentralblatt routinely review most new books and paper that they index, for instance. The Mathematics Gazette routinely publishes very short reviews of items likely to be of interest to its readers. These in no way distinguish the book from other books of its kind. Many of the remaining "reviews" listed in the overlong "Citations" section just show that the book appeared in some list. One is even a link to a Google books search (which, ironically, doesn't even have a user review associated with it), and at least the few others that I checked have about as little content. It is clear that, if this book were a truly notable scholarly reference, that more people would have noticed it by now, and it would have a much higher Google citation count. It is not unusual for truly well-known books in this field to have thousands of citations. So I suggest that we not be fooled here by the routine reviews that basically every mathematics book receives, and focus on the question of what distinguishes this book from the thousands of other mathematics books that are published each year. I'd say not much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page now contains a huge pile of junk references, but when this last came up, in 2008, I found what appeared to be non-junk references; for example:

The Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, has published a paper on this subject, not written by Grossman or Katz.

I no longer have access to this article, so I can't revisit it to see if my opinion is the same. But in the last RFD I thought that it appeared to satisfy the general notability guidline, regardless of its mathematical value or lack thereof. —Mark Dominus (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to multiplicative calculus. There seems to be some literature on this topic, but most of it appears to be under the name "multiplicative calculus", not "non-Newtonian calculus". (Beware that not all hits for "multiplicative calculus" are related.) —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if a biography page for Grossman or Katz came up for review with fewer than 20 google scholar hits, would you oppose its deletion? Since many of the references to the book are self-references by its authors, why should a more lenient standard apply here? Tkuvho (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a more lenient standard; I think it's the same standard. As far as I can tell, the topic of multiplicative calculus passes the WP:GNG. Neither Grossman nor Katz would satisfy that (very lenient) standard. It is not at all unusual or surprising that topic X might satisfy the notability standards, but that an author of some book about X might fail to satisfy the same standards, so I'm not sure what your point is. I did ignore self-references, as the GNG requires, and in fact I referred to those references above (among many others) as "junk". If you think I am making an error here, I wish you would say what you think it is. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not discussing multiplicative calculus here. I have not checked how notable that is. What we are discussing is a sensationalistic title "non-Newtonian", see also my detailed comments at WPM. Normally there would be no harm in redirecting this to "multiplicative calculus" (if that passes a follow-up AfD), but the nature of the title of the page under discussion calls specifically for a deletion. Tkuvho (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Mark's solution seems reasonable to me, provided the merger is of a sufficiently limited kind. There's little doubt in my mind that "multiplicative calculus" is notable. What seems much more dubious is the appropriation and rebranding of these ideas as "Non-Newtonian calculus". This is why I feel that the article should be judged on the notability of the book, rather than the underlying mathstical ideas. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a google scholar search on "multiplicative calculus grossman" so as to rule out unrelated occurrences of the phrase "multiplicative calculus", you get a highest count of... 10 cites. How is this more notable? At any rate, we are not discussing multiplicative calculus, yet. Tkuvho (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that multiplicative calculus is something people study, quite independently of Grossman's work. Grossman's book can be used as a reference there, as long as it is treated with WP:UNDUE weight (which it isn't—but that's a separate issue). The book seems to be reliable, even if not notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's about a book that came out in 1972, just a year after Categories for a Working Mathematician. Just compare the scope and influence! Also, when authors of a book engage in zealous self-promotion of their work on Wikipedia, you know something is wrong. — Kallikanzarid^talk 19:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a tough call. The article seems to consist mostly of justifications for itself so to me the issue is whether is anything to be saved from it. There are serious self-promotion issues here as well, as pointed out above, and I would like to suggest that people who write about their own work on WP are not following the spirit of the project and should desist. The WP:COI guideline is meant to prevent this type of behavior. Nevertheless, that issue is independent of whether the subject meets notability guidelines etc. Part of the problem here is that most of the article seems to be about the book Non-Newtonian Calculus rather than it's subject. Notability for the book or the related articles has not been established since the requirement is that it should have a lasting and significant impact in the field; lists of reviews are not sufficient for this. The book can be used as a reference, but the issue for the material is whether it has been picked up and passed on by other authors, in other words secondary sources. Doing the relevant web searches I found many hits, but all could be traced back to the same two or three authors associated with the original work. So I'm forced to concluded that the material here is based solely on primary sources. WP is an encyclopedia and so its content should based on secondary sources and I see no evidence that this material meets that criterion.--RDBury (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. During the previous AfD, I searched extensively for references. MathSciNet listed three references which mentioned non-Newtonian calculus anywhere: The book of Michael Grossman and Robert Katz, a book by Jane Grossman, Michael Grossman, and Robert Katz, and a book by Michael Grossman. Of these, only the first (the topic of the article) had any citations whatsoever, and all but one of those were self-citations. The MathSciNet review was not enthusiastic. I performed a similar experiment with Zentralblatt and got the same results. So the book's impact on professional mathematics seems to be null.
Later during the AfD I tried Google scholar. This produced a more extensive list of articles, all but one of which were by the Grossmans and Katz (in various combinations). It also produced lists of books received (which does not establish notability), a review, and advertisements apparently placed by the authors. That is, I found only one non-self-citation to this book in the almost 40 years since the book was published.
Since then, User:Smithpith (who has in the past stated that he is Michael Grossman) has tracked down many more citations. The article lists innumerable "mentions" or "reviews" of the book. The citations that would establish notability, however, are citations in papers. I picked one at random to look at: David Baqaee, "Intertemporal choice: a Nash bargaining approach", Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Research: Discussion Paper Series, ISSN 1177-7567, September 2010. The only place Grossman and Katz's book is mentioned is on page 17 (page 19 of the PDF), where the author writes: "Alternatively, one could use the notion of a 'product integral' to define the weighted Nash product (see, for example, Grossman and Katz (1972) for more information)." Product integrals have a history going back to Vito Volterra in 1887; the way I read that sentence, Grossman and Katz are being cited here as expositors, not as researchers. It is possible to have a notable expository book, but the book seems intended as a research monograph.
Are all the references like that? I am not sure. If most of them are, then any article on the book would have to present it as notable exposition, not notable research; but one would expect a notable research monograph to be cited as research, not as exposition. Perhaps someone with more patience than me will investigate the quality and kind of citations the book has gathered. Myself, I expect a notable 40-year old book to have more references. Good 40-year old mathematical books or papers have hundreds of citations. It's possible that this could change, but as always, WP:CRYSTAL; we don't have articles on the "next big thing" until that thing is actually notable. I don't think the book Non-Newtonian calculus is notable now, and I don't think it'll ever get there. Ozob (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Hardly any mention in either Math Reviews or Google Scholar, hardly any scholarly impact. The only thing going for "non-Newtonian calculus" is the provocative title, which also explains why publishers were lured into publishing such a non-theory in the first place. Tkuvho (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, essentially per Ozob & slawomir Bialy above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Zero scholarly impact, few mentions or references. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion decision on another article does not prejudice this one, supporters of keeping the article have pointed to reliable sources on the existance and notability of rivalry and there is nothing presented to overcome that. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brewers–Cubs rivalry[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reds–Cardinals rivalry, this article purports to describe a "rivalry" but doesn't demonstrate the existence of said rivalry. They played each other in interleague play for the first time in 1997 and have since been merged to the same division. There is nothing independent of those two facts that establishes this as a "rivalry". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There seems to be a lot more independent sources discussing this I-94 rivalry than there was for the Reds-Cards. The Bleacher Report article already referenced explicitly mentions this rivalry. I found other sources as well, e.g., [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (and also an examiner.com article, although that site seems to be blacklisted). On that basis (and the bit in the article about Cubs fans invading Miller Field for Cubs-Brewers games, which is currently unreferenced but referred to in a couple of the links I found) I am inclined to believe this rivalry is legitimate and the article should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reds–Cardinals rivalry is a redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries. Did you suggest this on the talk page of the article? This would assume that there WASN'T any citations to demonstrate notability, and if there was, then a merge would have been more appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually suggested a line be written in the MLB Rivalry article to note the rivalry. I had originally voted keep due to notability, but due to wiki rules about having multiple numerous sources talking about a rivalry I proposed to have it merged. Many of the delete crew argued me to the end about including it in the MLB rivalry article. I still think it should be included there. Arnabdas (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that I voted merge then because of the numerous sources only referring to the current Reds-Cardinals rivalry, thus being of recentism. Brewers-Cubs isn't recent, this one's been going on for a whle. Arnabdas (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the historic competitive relationship of two old franchises like the Reds and the Cardinals is deemed "non-notable," there's no way that this one is. My own view is that AfD got that wrong. So it goes... OTHERSTUFF, I know, but there is something to be said for use of precedent to rapidly solve these matters. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A big difference between the two articles is that this one seems to have a lot more independent sources establishing the existence of an ongoing rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which is a manifestation of the bias towards recentism that is part-and-parcel of information on the internet. I don't have anything against this or any seriously done rivalry articles, mind you — it just strikes me as a rather ridiculous failure of Wikipedia's notablity dogma if a century-old NL rivalry is tossed and a Selig-era pseudo-rivalry is kept. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up to a point I agree with you. But I had difficulty finding anything anywhere suggesting that anyone thought the Reds and Cards had a notable rivalry ever before 2010, even going back to books on 19th century baseball. While this one has plenty of coverage, which makes sense given the proximity of the two teams along a particular highway. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that many rivalries ARE notable enough. As for this one, I am not a fan and haven't extensively searched them out. But idea of an article about sports rivalries if sourced would seem fine if it is indeed notable enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP After seeing so many comments but no !votes (including my own lack thereof), I decided to do some real searching on this particular rivalry (using the term without the - mark or quote) and found [19] [20] [21] which would indicate to me that the RIVALRY itself, between these two teams, is indeed notable, documented and would be a perfectly logical article on Wikipedia. There are more articles out there, these were just three I found on the first page of a Google search. Actually, these were on the first half of that page, didn't need to search further before I could tell it was notable. Rivalries are real things, and while this may not be as big as others, it still passes the test. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources do not do enough to establish notability. Bleacher Report is a poor site that I believe fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO. Otherwise what you have here is one article from 2008 and one from 2011. That's not widespread coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a strong rivalry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rivalry is intense and has been for 14 years due to divisional rivalry and, even before that, regional proximity. There should also be a Brewers-White Sox rivalry IMO due to the rivalry they had, but that requires more sourcing. Arnabdas (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, I have no great policy-based reasons for it, and I think the article could definitely use more sourcing - but I have friends who are fans of both teams, and I'm assured that both sides do consider it a rivalry, especially with the closeness of the teams. I guess I'm saying that I don't have anything that satisfies WP:V, but I'm sure it can be found. umrguy 42 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better if there was a policy reason to cite. They might think they have a rivalry, but that doesn't in and of itself make it a notable one. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep articles on sports rivalries most certainly can be notable, and this rivalry certainly is notable enough for inclusion here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries can be notable, but what makes this one notable? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources cover this rivalry and state that it is a rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susning.nu[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. LiteralKa (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a re-write and added sourcing not deletion. Known site in sweden. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a valid reason. Could you please provide actual examples of sources. Thanks LibStar (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I get over a hundred hits when I search for "susning.nu" in Swedish (and Norwegian) newspaper articles (through Mediearkivet, "The Media Archive"). I haven't gone through them all, but one of the most recent hits was an article in Sydsvenskan (the major newspaper in southern Sweden), about Wikipedia turning ten years old, mentioning two competitors: Google Knol and susning.nu. (From a Swedish perspective, that makes perfect sense: susning.nu was the online encyclopedia here for a couple of years. Yes, WP:IKNOWIT, I know, I'm just trying to put my findings into perspective.) /Julle (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The same as Julle. --NERIUM (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

János Kertész (soccer)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the content of this unsourced BLP J04n(talk page) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was actually in the process of sending this deletionward myself when the AfD wsa proposed, while there's a bunch of Gbooks results for a mathematician of the same name, I was unable to find any verification of this player from any source save wikimirrors. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 12:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources appear available for the article. I was also unable to find any relevant hits. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeet d arora[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The short Tribune India article about his exhibition is in their Life+Style section. The other given sources are about his father, not him. Last source is his blog. Ben Ben (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails BIO --Reference Desker (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails notability. --CarTick (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Acather96 (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superantispyware[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/SuperAntiSpyware

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

A very similar article (different capitalization) was deleted in 2008 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperAntiSpyware. The article is in a better shape than before, but I don't think the software passes the threshold for inclusion. -- Luk ^talk 10:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How similar? Similar enough to warrant a deletion per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion? Perhaps it is good idea if the attending administrator check this. Fleet Command (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My reading of the history is that this was speedily deleted once in 2008; the prior AfD closed as no consensus. At any rate, Google News and Books both show substantial coverage in reliable sources.[22][23][24][25] This is well known, general interest software that would appear to meet current notability criteria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact it's the third AfD (I missed one). Delete in 2008, No consensus in 2009, and this one. -- Luk ^talk 16:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the reviews about the product talk about how uneffective it is, and while most "reviews" are on pages with "download now" buttons, not all are. Seems to squeak passed WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per prior AFD. Notability isn't temporary; the product may now be obsolete, but it once enjoyed significant coverage as a free (if more limited) alternative to commercial antimalware. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navy (TBA Film)[edit]

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

Film's existence cannot be verified. No Sources. Nothing relevant on Google. Suspected hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOHOAXES. An IP-user tried do delete the AfD notice ... --Ben Ben (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if it isn't a hoax, and per WP:HOAX if it is. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force (TBA Film). Fails WP:V and not surprisingly, WP:N as well. Hoax per WP:DUCK. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I believe all edits by User: Militaryseries88 need to be closely examined.[26] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army (TBA Film)[edit]

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

Film's existence cannot be verified. No Sources. Nothing relevant on Google. Suspected hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOHOAXES. An IP-user tried do delete the AfD notice ... --Ben Ben (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if it isn't a hoax, and per WP:HOAX if it is. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the many hoax articles created by User:Militaryseries88.diff Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force (TBA Film)[edit]

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

Film's existence cannot be verified. No Sources. Nothing relevant on Google. Suspected hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 09:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOHOAXES. An IP-user tried do delete the AfD notices ... --Ben Ben (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if it isn't a hoax, and per WP:HOAX if it is. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the film is talked about nowhere else on the internet, and whoever wrote the article has no idea what they are talking about by the looks of things. Also WP:NOHOAXES and WP:CRYSTAL as shown above. Andy4789 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written the article fails WP:V. The failure of the topic to meet WP:N is the nail in the coffin. I call hoax per WP:DUCK. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in light of article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gossage[edit]

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

an unremarkable sports commentator/broadcaster who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. most of the coverage merely confirms his role [27] or refers to namesakes in USA. LibStar (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable as a host of show, sport newsreader and director of sport on a major TV network plus the radio host, commentary and other media, MC and hosting work. Not everything is googleable.The-Pope (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please provide significant third party coverage that demonstrates "clearly notable". Working for a major TV network does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It has only been there since July 2009. Do non-notable people have articles written about their injuries in major online newspapers? There would be plenty more profile-style pieces from WA newspapers that aren't online. You should know by now not to solely rely on ghits. This isn't a weekend fill-in reporter for the past 6 months, it's 20 years and major positions. The-Pope (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

people injured in major crashes gets reported all the time. That does not add notability. I fail to see significant coverage of this individual and you have failed to provide evidence of this. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note:Due to the easter weekend and ANZAC day overlap sources off line arent accessible until after the 27 April, I've added some additional online sources including an IMDb reference, though thats has limited detail. Multiple media outlets reported his fall 2009, a specialist racing media outlet Perth Turf Talk report his departure from racing radio(sources in the article) in 2010. The article does need some copyediting to bring it upto date as the article is basicly as written in 2007, with some recent events tacked on. Gnan garra 02:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gossage is a well known media identity in Western Australia and host of one of the more popular football shows on television. Gven the multiple external refs from the Australian press, this would suggest a keep. I also agree it needs copyediting and needs to be updated. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately it seems that WA newspapers do not have online archives (at least not ones available to the general public. That said, do non-notable people have articles like this [28] [29] [30] on them in newspapers in The Age, a major paper on the other side of the country? I wouldn't think so and, combined with the refs in the article and the large likelihood of offline refs, I think it shows that Gossage is a notable media personality, especially in WA. Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick DeSilva[edit]

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

Non notable, unencyclopedic, no reliable sources cited Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not look notable. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 05:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - External source search shows references to his appearances in the media, advice on TV shows. Such references do not confer notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VSCA Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert an individual's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through independent and reliable sources. At this point, the article is lacking in this area as presented through the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious copy of T-Mobile. Blatant hoax. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile9[edit]

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

It has no references and its verifiability is questionable. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^T/_S 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. The article is a copypaste of the T-Mobile article with "Mobile9" in place of "T-Mobile". Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Erpert took the words out of my mouth, err, keyboard. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Showen[edit]

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

Unpublished manga. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. Prod removed by author ttonyb (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Admits it is unpublished, comment on talk page reveals COI, no references or verifiable claims of notability, self-promotion, need I go on? Wickedjacob (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Sheesh, it looks like he tried to write the entire manga in the article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Erpert. It looks like a whole manga article. And does not seem in anyway useful in any way. Also it calls itself an "unofficial" Manga production. -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 05:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete. Per Erpert. As long as it is written in this manner, then delete it is. This type of writing should be posted elsewere aside of Wikipedia. hmssolent\Let's convene 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete pure Original research Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site. This falls right into the category of Vanispamcruftisement. —Farix (t | c) 17:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of descendants of Nazi officials[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any reliable sources discussing this specific group of children of Nazis specifically. Also, the inclusion criteria are excessively vague: who qualifies as a "Nazi official" or as a "well-known member of the Third Reich"? There are probably tens of thousands of people out there with a Nazi ancestor notable enough to have been discussed in multiple reliable sources, simply because there were so many high-level Nazi functionaries doing so many notable things. Where does the cutoff occur?

But the main problem I have with this is the potential for abuse and for point-pushing, especially given the vague inclusion requirement. This list would be very easy to misuse; find someone you want to smear whose father was a file clerk for the Reich, claim he was a Nazi official, and add him. The word "Nazi" is so tar-and-feather that it has the potential to cause real harm.

(I have already removed the title "Nazi Descendants" from the article itself, as in English that's ambiguous enough to be taken in the wrong way - ie. that the members of the list are themselves Nazis.) Contested PROD. NellieBly (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not in favor of lists in general, but wikipedians have been allowing a place for them for quite a while now. I don't think its a good idea to argue that a list shouldn't exist merely because there is the potential for misuse. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that they both need to have their own articles to qualify. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, there is a potential for point pushing, but it does not seem to have been exercised. The inclusion requirements are, as RAN says, that both must have an article, and there will not be all that many people. Of the ones who are presently listed, the connection is undoubted, and, for most of them, there are specific references to the relationship between their father's careers and their own careers. A few of them have written books about it!. Just needs careful watching, not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed, the function of this article is to list those who have notability by way of an article of their own. Also agree, careful watching is needed as the opportunity for abuse and vandalism are both present.--Whiteguru (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the goal is to link a group of articles together, isn't that best done with a category? GabrielF (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that categories could handle the linking as needed, though would also note that I'm missing what's actually notable outside of 'this is what that Nazi's kid is doing now' type references for at least a couple of the subjects, and I'm not sure I see the encyclopedic value of linking those that do have independent notability with their being offspring of a certain group. --Onorem♠Dil 07:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I fail to see how this list serves an encyclopaedic purpose, and feel that it violates the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:BLP to call particular attention to a group of people solely by a feature that is both (i) highly negative & (ii) beyond their control. Would Wikipedia contemplate a List of famous rape victims? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category "Rape Victims" was deleted. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are agreed that notability is not inherited; the crimes of Nazi fathers should not be revisited upon their children. Those two should immediately make clear this article problematic, especially if any of the people on the list are living. People don't choose their parents; 'Nazi children' is not a notable subject in itself. Thus it would seem that this list/connection is not soundly based, but an excuse for creating an indiscriminate collection of info because it could be WP:INTERESTING. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if notable people qualify for this list, i think there are huge WP:BLP with someone being tainted as descending from a Nazi. that is something very few people would want to admit. what next List of descendants of Sicilian Mafia? LibStar (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is a terrible, terrible idea. Per our policy, we should take pains not to besmirch living people unnecessarily. Enshrining people in this list does the exact opposite, conspicuously classifying them by a decidedly negative characteristic. According to BLP policy, "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." This list is deeply problematic in that it is directly at odds with that policy. A list of Nazi officials is one thing; a list of their descendants is another. These people did not choose to be descended from Nazis. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Comment. I looked at every one of the articles. One is a redirect to Dad, several are unreferenced and I saw only one that seemed independently notable of the parent. I think some other deletion nominations may be in order here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Wikipedia is not a family tree. Then we have the question of inclusion criteria — what exactly constitutes a "Nazi official"? We know they're from the "Third Reich" only... Business officials of the period with obligatory nominal party membership? High officers of the SS? A bit of difference, eh? Or is there? This terrible list makes no distinction. The content is not only trivial, it is potentially libelous, should someone be listed here incorrectly and damage result. Seriously, one of the worst lists I've seen at AfD, a terrible, terrible idea — done terribly. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This highly controversial, potentially libelous list is also absolutely unreferenced!!! Carrite (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under "sins of the father". The individuals on this list should already be notable for other reasons else they would not be on any list on wikipedia, and adding them to this list is trivia at best, and raises serious WP:BLP concerns by association. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Excellent point — "Notability is not inherited," as we like to say. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The children of some of the most infamous Nazi figures have achieved notability because journalists have taken in interest in their experience and on their perspective on their parents. I recently read an article on Adolph Eichmann's son and when I googled it I found several other articles and a gallery in Life magazine. [31][32][33][34]. There's definitely notability in being the child of a major war criminal - although, not, of course any ordinary Nazi. GabrielF (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dennis Brown and Carrite. No encyclopedic basis, no well-defined inclusion criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - These are people wholly unrelated to one another save for a bit of historical trivia on who their parents were. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per BLP concerns expressed above. Jaque Hammer (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horrible BLP problems, with great potential for harm. No indication of notability of these people as a class. What's next? Children of murderers? Children of abortionists? On TV shows about crime they used to say "The names have been changed to protect the innocent." So delete this article to protect the innocent. Notability is not inherited, nor is infamy. Edison (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- being called a descendant of a Nazi is potentially harmful, and this list is very poorly sourced so per WP:BLP it should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 22:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no BLP issue here. Will they be able to sue Wikipedia for saying there ancestors were Nazi? No, they legally cannot do that. The article is not calling them Nazi, just saying there ancestry, and it is no illegal. --Reference Desker (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Horribly missing the point of WP:BLP; something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be harmful. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This also misses WP:HARM. No one is suggesting that the individuals not have articles on Wikipedia if they are independently notable. The WP:HARM is lumping them together in the public square to throw rocks at them because daddy was a Nazi. Because this doesn't interfere with their individual articles, it isn't censorship. As pointed out above, similar to this. The value of having this information group in this manner is grossly outweighed by the potential HARM it could do others, and not grouping it this way reduces in no way affects the content of individual articles. Should be an easy call. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list with no clear standard for inclusion; no clear encyclopaedic value; disporportionatley difficult to source/resource; potential BLP issues; ... Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. I understand our "notability is not inherited" rule to mean that significant coverage in reliable sources of X solely as the child of notable Y does not earn X an article in Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's my understanding too. Hermann Goering's child is only known to the world because of the family connection, but Hermann's courageous brother Albert is considered independently notable by reliable sources, and well he should be. A more light-hearted example would be Kirk Douglas and Michael Douglas: perhaps Michael wouldn't have been able to make a start in show business if he weren't Kirk's son, but he's still independently notable. --NellieBly (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A whole bucket of problems, starting with the idea that there's a topic here to begin with at all. The Nazi party wasn't royalty; it's positions weren't filled through agnatic descent. With vanishingly few exceptions, "List of descendants of..." or "Descendants of..." articles relate to royalty (and several of those exceptions, frankly, might need to visit AFD). Beyond that, it is unquestionably true that this article is a BLP nightmare. We don't have articles listing the descendants of any other group of "bad people", nor should we. List of descendants of the Manson Family? If that's ever a blue link, something has gone wrong. If that's not obvious now, consider the future: 20 years from now, would we put a notable businessman or politician on this list because his grandfather or great-grandfather was a Nazi official? Surely not! While it is true that many children of Nazi high officials are notable, often simply for the media attention paid to their circumstances, those people have individual articles to address the issue. This list, however, needs to go. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a BLP minefield with little encyclopedic value. Hut 8.5 16:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hut8.5 sums it up succinctly. (Also, I've added references to article. I'm not someone who demands keep voters add references to articles, but in this case it was pretty disappointing to see people voting keep, yet leaving it unreferenced when the BLP issues are so obvious.) Jenks24 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennis Brown. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP issues galore, no real substantial link connecting these people, plus the obvious moral reasons. Gah.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Moral reason" is not any Wikipedia policy. --Reference Desker (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but a useless list based on a trivial and unencyclopedic concept is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page makes a potential for a WP:BLP shitstorm, and that's only putting it nicely. The children of sinners are not sinners. However, there are people out there with the mindset that the daughter of a murderer should be executed, because people are governed by their emotions, and this is what makes them do illogical things. There have been notable cases in the past where, whilst seeking revenge against a murderer who has committed suicide, victims have made retaliation murders against family members. Why should it even be listed in Wikipedia that certain people are related to certain criminals? Does the Wikipedia community really believe that holding such information is beneficial towards building an encyclopedia? Primum non nocere is not Wikipedia policy, but hey, it's common sense, plus I'd consider someone a decent person if they follow that principle and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it a revenge against my "keep" votes in your AfDs and the note in your talk page. --Reference Desker (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, what's down with you nigga? Keep Ad hominem in the playground, I'll have none of it thanks. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and blast the edit history to pieces. Serious BLP problems and no encyclopedic value at all. - filelake shoe 15:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per obvious BLP problems, and because it is a great steaming pile of garbage, unworthy of an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Else we can start listing grandchildren by now, most of them are in their 30s... and I bet there's at least one notable great-grandchild somewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of X Universe races#Argon Federation. And delete as unsourced. Sandstein 06:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argon Federation[edit]

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

No reliable third party sources that can allow this article to meet the general notability guideline. Wikipedia is not just plot summaries and requires fictional topics have reliable information about reception and significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_X_Universe_races#Argon_Federation - though I'm not entirely certain that we should have that article, either. There isn't any material that talks about this faction (or any other from this game series), so an article is inappropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no sources, independent or otherwise, appear to be out there so this article fails both WP:V and WP:N. I oppose a merge because there is no sourced content, therefore nothing to be retained. Reyk _YO! 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ultraexactzz. Nothing to merge, but a reasonable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has had references added during the AfD, the need for improvement is not a justification for deletion. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 01:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jurispedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wiki-based website lacking any sort of notability whatsoever. LiteralKa (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm wary of ever voting to delete an article that has survived multiple AfDs in the past, but the reasoning behind keeping it in years past was the promise that the article would be improved, which it never has. More to the point, however, is whether or not the topic itself is worth an article rather than whether the article as currently written is worth anything. Glancing through Google scholar, there does seem to be various mentions of jurispedia. At the moment, however, I'm not sure that the coverage rises to the level of significant coverage. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG. "but the reasoning behind keeping it in years past was the promise that the article would be improved, which it never has." is not a valid reason to delete. Improving articles is a matter of editing, not AFD, via WP:DEADLINE. I also don't see any promises to improve in the previous AFDs being used as justification. I'm seeing use in Scholar and news, with more than trivial coverage (most are not in English, which is never a reason to delete). And yes, the article certainly does need work, including more citations, which would be a great reason to look them up or comment on the talk page of that article, or tag the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One would think that with the backlog at New Pages starting to grow, more productive work making inclusion decisions could be done there rather than rehashing this for the third time. It's just a stub, it's a serious resource, don't pick at it. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. --Reference Desker (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the nearly four years since the first AFD, the article has hardly changed. In particular, no reliable sources have been added to verify the content let alone support notability. That suggests to me that notability is never going to be established and in turn that supports deletion, in spite of the no-deadline argument. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOEFFORT pretty much declare that argument as a non-argument. No deadline doesn't mean 'no deadline but less than 4 years'. Secondarily, WP:V is clearly about being verifiable, not verified. It should come as no shock when a website that primarily appeals to non-English speaking people (per the refs that were easily found) isn't quickly referenced on the English Wikipedia. Notability isn't language specific either. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the four conflicting points of view in the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline do you feel trumps policy? Secondarily, WP:V is clear enough: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" and I claim that four years is long enough to establish that this material is not verifiable. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Essays such as WP:DEADLINE have been tested by time and are often respected the same as many guidelines because the consensus of editors agree that they should. You've only been here a couple of months so let me just say that there is a big, big difference in websites designed by rigid policy, and one like Wikipedia that is based on consensus. And yes "verifiability". That does not mean it IS verified, it means that it is ABLE to be verified, that is all (I thought I had made that point clear earlier, but I guess not). The article has no contentious claims and is not a BLP, and frankly, more effort has gone into arguing what should be obvious, than the effort it would take to source it. That said, it still passes the notability GUIDELINES, which means it passes the criteria for inclusion. Quoting the guidelines and policies is not the same as working with them for years and understanding how they are interpreted here. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the perceived inadequacies of other editors do not contribute to the discussion and might be seen as disruptive. My point was that four years of failure to verify the material is some sort of evidence that it is not verifiable. You say that it is able to be verified -- please support your claim with evidence. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being new isn't inadequate. Not looking at the citations on the page, or using the search links in the AFD itself MAY be perceived as making an inadequate effort before interjecting. You are simply viewing the guidelines in a more rigid fashion than most editors. Four years of not being sources doesn't prove it can't be: you can't prove a negative. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said "evidence" not "proof". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because its sufficiently notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidedia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wiki-based website lacking any sort of notability. LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments in the previous Afds strongly showed that notability exists even if the article is shoddy. Is there a new issue? Wickedjacob (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's fairly obvious notability, even if the current article doesn't show it. I think that a translation from the German Wikipedia article is needed, but don't have the time at the moment (or, really, good enough German). PWilkinson (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have translated one sentence from the german wiki article, to make it clear what it differs from Uncyclopedia.[35] A google search with german only option gives 29.800 hits,[36] with english only results in 3.350 hits.[37] I'm not sure if this is enough for WP:WEB. On de.wiki the article has been deleted 12 times [38] and has survived 4 AfDs.[39] --Ben Ben (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable, most references are just not in English. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nom follows 2 prior keeps, without explanation for why prior consenus outcomes were wrong or need revisiting.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's supposed to be older than Encyclopedia Dramatica. 120.56.172.226 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Shay[edit]

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

Subject may well have set a record some time ago, but the reference is dead and I cannot find any other reliable sources to establish that this person passes GNG or some Athlete's version. Also, the amount of vandalism is somewhat overwhelming; dig through the history to find a cleaner version. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering nominating this myself. I removed some of the overt vandalism, along with the dead ref. I also could not find any refs to verify. The only notability criterion he might meet is #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#College athletes regarding records, although the article does not specify the nature of the record. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a strong suspicion this is a hoax article. I removed numerous blp violations and a picture that nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. ~~Odd also that the claim is for the Female 13-18 world record, when he is clearly male.~~ Strike that, appears to have been vandalism. Additionally, Concept2, which appears to be the best source for these types of records (and a marathon record would be set indoors on a machine, not actually on water), has no record of this individual or time. So at worse a hoax, at best, an unverified claim to a very minor world (at least in a certain age range) record, with no other coverage. Ravendrop 03:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 17:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable. Unverified claim of age group record, and no other claim of notability. Overdrawn Invader (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Can be recreated with sources. Also I will userfy or incubate this article on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Cugno[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I created this myself, back in 2005 when Wikipedia's sourcing and notability rules were still basically being made up as we went along. By 2011 standards, however, it falls squarely in the unsourced BLP bucket, and having done a Google search I can attest that more solid reliable sources just ain't there. Delete, albeit without prejudice against future recreation if better sources can be found. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You mean to imply that these notability rules that some people like to cite from memory as Absolute Truth about whether an article should or shouldn't be in Wikipedia weren't delivered from a burning bush to Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales 5,000 years ago? I am aghast... Carrite (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a little more recent then that. Here's a link to the burning bush. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bearcat, I can appreciate you may not love your early Wikipedia work, but there's no reason to nuke this. Tag it for sources, leave it be. Carrite (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that I've already done enough searching to establish that there really aren't strong sources out there to be had not count for something? Does the fact that even the basic notability claim is quite weak by current standards not count for something? Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion standards may have morphed over time, but the article is the same as it ever was. Why lose it? Carrite (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this [40] and [41]. Are they the same Pete Cugno? Argolin (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither one of those is a strong reliable source that talks about him; they just demonstrate that he exists, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, I'm trying to determine if the article is salvagable. I am aware WP:N is not WP:EXIST. I've cited articles in the past with WP:EXIST references leading to a determination of WP:BAND # 5 (the record label dropped the band way back in the late 80's). Argolin (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (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) 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have some sympathy for Carrite's position. To think about this from our reader's perspective, the existence of our article on this minor albeit apparently uncontroversial topic is a net benefit, whatever our rules have to say about it. However, where retention becomes difficult to justify is that in the absence of any substantial reliable coverage, it becomes impossible for us to verify even the basic content of the article and thus, crucially, defenceless against inaccurate or malicious additions. Unverifiable BLPs are unmaintainable BLPs, and this topic is not so important to cover that our duty to consider the welfare of the subject is overrided by reader interest. Skomorokh 01:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Kasisol[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources to demonstrate notability under the GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I too failed to find any reliable sources to establish notability. Huon (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TigerShark (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: At this moment I am not able to delete the article due to a website error. I will try again later but, in the meantime, if another admin is able to delete it, please feel free to do so. TigerShark (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oz Principle: Getting Results Through Individual & Organizational Accountability[edit]

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

Spam articles about non-notable business philosophy. No media coverage aside from press releases. Am also nominating non-notable co-author; the other co-author was deleted here.——Chowbok ☠ 01:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. Google News results show very sparse reviews, and the books don't seem to propose anything definite enough to constitute a significant advance to human learning: The Oz Principle uses examples from L. Frank Baum's novel to portray the journey down the yellow brick road as one of self-discovery wherein the characters learn that only they themselves possess the power to fully realize or change their lives. The authors extend the metaphor of Dorothy, the tin man, the scarecrow, and the lion by describing the heart, courage, and wisdom needed to acknowledge, accept, and deal with circumstances and events as they are. The result is a willingness to accept responsibility, which leads to individual and organizational accountability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTADVERT. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources which could indicate the article can meet the requirements for inclusion either. Acather96 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Topps. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Push Pop[edit]

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

Does not indicate notability, unsourced, the ad phrases are purely promotional. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Topps as per WP:PRODUCT, which states Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. -Addionne (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Initial thought was how this was even nominated, till I looked at the article. While I technically voted merge, 95% of the existing info needs to go. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (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) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nubian Jak[edit]

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

Article created and edited by WP:SPA has huge WP:V issues and fails WP:N. The article as it stands is about a game called "Nubian Jak", basically trivial pursuit with questions about black history. I could find no evidence that the board game has won any significant awards despite claims in the article.Tetron76 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources indicate that the company has won awards such as Winner of the Black Arts Sports Enterprise (BASE) award but nothing for the game.

None of the quotes qre sourced or seem to meet WP:V and could even be from adverts / promotion. The quiz show failsl notability and does not appear to be based on the game just shares a theme. I found one passing mention in a RS for the game [42]

Suggest that any salvagable material or information relating to the company which does get passing mentions could be placed in Jak Beula.Tetron76 (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—The Jamaican author Jak Bubuela-Dodd won the 2005 "Black Enterprise Business Innovator of the Year" award for this game. It was also the first "black board game" to get mainstream distribution in the UK.[43] At the "Black Enterprise Awards 2005", the creators of the game won an "Innovator of the Year Award".[44] There appear to be sufficient independent sources to grant this article notability.—RJH (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification these are two sources for the same event with slightly differing information. I am not sure what your first source means by "black board game"? several Mancala games have been marketed, etc... I am guessing they mean "black history board game.Tetron76 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe that the article could be changed to Nubian Jak Ltd on the basis of awards but all of the awards listed on the NJ website [45] including this one are for the business not the game or for game design. If the reliable sources having significant coverage are found meet WP:GNG then I will withdraw my nomination but the two sources above only constitute passing reference.Tetron76 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tetron76 (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2011 (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) 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ukachi Nkwocha[edit]

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

Test edit Maimai009 14:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Nom rationale of "test edit" does not seem appropriate for an AFD, but while there is a claim to notability for this recently created article, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Google news and basic web searches bring back nothing on subject. Also, it seems that WP:BLPPROD would be a more appropriate action here. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2011 (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) 00:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No brainer. CutOffTies has got it right. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is a test edit, shouldn't it have a speedy tag on it? Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: My take is the nom didn't understand the deletion process. Also, it is not a test edit. There is a claim of notability so it is not A7. IMO, it should have been WP:BLPPROD'd. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to clear the inclusion-worthiness bar, which involves the use of verifiable independent source material on the subject. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back In The Saddle Tour[edit]

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News shows extensive coverage for this 1984 Aerosmith tour, both at that time and in following years. The tour was notable because it was not in support of an album release, but was successful and drew attention nonetheless. Apparently, it helped revitalize their career, which had been at a low point. Cullen328 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I couldn't find the google news coverage you are referring to. A couple references added to the article might go a long way in meeting WP:CONCERT. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Did you try the Google News tool above, which does an in-depth search of the archives? I am editing with a smart phone at the moment. I can read the sources but can't format them into references until I am at a desktop computer. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Number of Google hits is not in and of itself a reason to keep. If some of those hits can establish notability of the tour and are then integrated into the article, I'd consider rescinding my AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response My argument to keep is not based on the number of Google hits, but rather on the quality of the references. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing coverage by a number of newspapers, although I'm not paying $2.99 to read them. WP:V only requires it is verifiable, not necessarily verified. Would appear to pass notability, unsurprisingly. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added several sections to the article describing the notability of this particular tour, and also added six references to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cullen328's improvements seem to show that the tour meets the standard of WP:CONCERT. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the excellent work on the update. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator rescinds Cullen328 did nice work demonstrating notability of this tour. As nominator, I withdraw my delete and ask this AfD be closed as keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Kismet[edit]

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

Unremarkable band, no coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:BAND. doomgaze (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as failing WP:BAND. Their second album was reviewed by Allmusic; other than that, I've found nothing to indicate notability. It's a shame; I'm listening to some of their stuff right now, and I kind of like their sound. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Acather96 (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Records (UK)[edit]

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

This company does not have the "Significant coverage" that address the company directly in detail needed for it's own article. The only coverage that can be found is mentions and trival coverage. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an unsourced stub page with little going for it. The only external link is its official website. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find any significant coverage of it. HOWEVER, this label did play a significant role in the development of several notable bands including "The Art Attacks," "Cuddly_Toys", "Family_Fodder", "Play_Dead_(band)", "Wasted_Youth_(British_band)", and "Chron_Gen" and as such played a significant part in the history of punk music during its lifespan. I agree with Backtable on the state of the article. I wish I could I find some coverage to improve the article. However, I think an argument can be made that the label is notable and just needs someone with better access to music reference sources to be able to prove it. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this article from Sounds magazine in 1980, which should easily make it meet the notability criteria. I've added it as a ref. Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant enough label, that is also covered in Alex Ogg's book Independence Days.--Michig (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Schafer[edit]

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

I originally created this article in 2008, honestly I am not sure why I did. This article in my opinion does not meet the standards of WP:POLITICIAN and should be deleted. Marcusmax(speak) 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unsuccesful political candidate, he fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim of notability is made. Nominator is to be commended for recommending deletion of an article they wrote, based on a better understanding of notability developed with time and experience. Well done. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. never held major political office. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He might meet WP:BASIC via WP:GNG. He's been head of Lakeview Planetarium (at Lakeview Museum in Peoria, Illinois) for a quite a while, and has taught astronomy at Bradley University since 1980. He was behind the Lakeview-centered model solar system, which is supposedly the largest complete model solar system on Earth, and some articles about the model system focus on Schafer himself:
- Storch, Charles (2004-09-14). "Pedaling to Pluto: A trek across world's largest complete solar system model: Through cornfields and into stores at the 'speed of light'". Chicago Tribune. Chicago: Tribune Company. Archived from the original on 2008-11-04. Retrieved 2011-04-18.
- Size and Scale: Peoria and Beyond. Discovery Channel School [now Discovery Education]. Discovery Communications. — a 9-minute Discovery Channel School video about Schaefer and his bicycling between the Lakeview model planets. This seems to be from around 2001. May be that Schafer is the host, not the subject.
- Discover Magazine: How Big Is My Universe?. Discovery Channel School [now Discovery Education]. Discovery Communications. — 26-minute Discovery Channel School video (VHS DC723478; DVD DC023542) from around 1999, same subject. This seems to be from around 1999; I don't know how it relates to Size and Scale: Peoria and Beyond. May be that Schafer is the host, not the subject.

--Closeapple (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Closeapple (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CloseApple's comment certainly made me take a second look, and the lakeview model is certainly fascinating and might be worthy of an article itself, but I don't think an article on the man is called for. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AP Dataweigh[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The coverage referred to in this article refers to 1) an article that mentions this AP Dataweigh's product in passing as being used by another company (the article is about the company using the product) 2) an indication that this company presented at a conference. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination. None of the references say anything that establishes significant effects on technology, culture, or history. Text of the article also is promotional and non-neutral as well as vague and unspecific: AP Dataweigh, Inc. offers solutions to regulation compliance, quantity verification, weight sorting, missing component inspection and out-of-tolerance checkweighing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz Dziamka[edit]

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

This is a long unsourced bio with little notability. Every college professor does not need a Wikipedia page. Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG because of the insubstantial coverage in third-party sources. Goodvac (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moe anthropomorphism#Military_hardware. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha Musume[edit]

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

This is an apparently non-notable subset of moe anthropomorphism. I don't see anything in the current article that could be merged to the mecha musume section in that article. Please note that the most substantial potential citation, to the boing-boing site, uses wikipedia as a source and is therefore unusable. Malkinann (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I must comment that this is a Japanese term and thus, to be fair, a search on reliable source(s) should be also conducted in Japanese, also, this term in Japanese actually appears quite often in Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan magazines. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 09:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ This is a common subset of Japanese moe anthropomorphism. Might not be notable in Western nations, but I wouldn't call it non-notable. The article does need a lot of work though. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge On second thought, upon looking more closely at the article, most of the information there seems biased. Most of it should be trimmed, and the section in moe anthropomorphism expanded with anything salvageable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Without sources, the content of the article is not salvageable for a merge. However, it would be a useful redirect for Moe anthropomorphism and redirects are cheap. —Farix (t | c) 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. 'Mecha musume' is a legitimate term, although a fairly narrow one. Going through my CSE, I find a number of uses of the term, both with and without definition (pointing to an expectation by the author that the term would be understood by readers): Japanator 2 3, THEM, ANN 2, Destructoid, and is defined in the Geektionary. If there were more than brief discussions and usage of the term, I'd go for a keep, but as it stands... I suspect one could write at least 2 articles on 'mecha musume', 1 article on the general moe anthropomorphism and its use in works like Strike Witches and a 2nd article on the company which manufactures mecha musume figures which is apparently named 'Mecha Musume' - but Japanese business sources are hard to come by in English. Hopefully there will be sources enough eventually to support a standalone article, in the meantime, not losing the existing content is important. --Gwern (contribs) 23:21 24 April 2011 (GMT)

I have come across a few myself within the last ten minutes, I find your argument hard to fathom, Gwern. - Jake Talley (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Come across what? Where? How does it apply to my comment which contains multiple points?

For that matter, why are you going through my edits and reverting reference additions? Or are you going to claim that it's sheer coincidence that you have reverted or commented on my stuff on 7 different articles while also violating PROD policy and lying in marking edits as minor? --Gwern (contribs) 19:11 29 April 2011 (GMT)

Strange, earlier I could've swore I saw text stating how hard it was to find Japanese manga for the particular thingamagig. In any case, 7 articles? Are you sure? I've just been going round doing my usual daily business on here, not my fault if you follow me. PROD? That sounds awful kinky Gwern, but no thankyou. In all seriousness, I can't really see why you'd accuse me of lying but hey, the world we live in eh? Jake Talley (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, User:Jake Talley is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Gutman[edit]

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

Contested prod, TV journalists are not inherently notable. Gigs (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (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, 14 April 2011 (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) 00:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails every known WP notability guideline. Qworty (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxation in Tunisia[edit]

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

This article appears to be entirely copied from one or more other sites, e.g. somosophils.wordpress.com. Joja lozzo 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2011 (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) 00:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Copyvio is nearly complete. This is basically a taxation guide or nomenclature. There are a number of third party sources returned by Google Books, all of which deal with the economy and economic outlook of Tunisia. This doesn't really merit an article of its own. WP:NOTMANUAL applies; WP is not a Taxation Guide to any economy. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Baseball Watcher 22:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ro Hip Hop Artist[edit]

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

I was trying to wikify this, but I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. There are some blog matches, and some PR-type info, but I cannot find evidence of notability per WP:BIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. Chzz ► 03:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Number 7 on the Billboard R&B/Hip Hop chart in June 26, 2009 should be enough to satisfy criterion 2 of WP:BAND, but the link appears to be broken... checking the Billboard archives doesn't appear to agree with this assertion. Could I be looking at the wrong chart or is there a mistake in the wp article? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Billboard.biz is the site to look at for sales charts... unfortunately it needs a subscription. A screen grab isn't a particularly useful substitute. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yung Ro is currently a redirect to The Color Changin' Click. If this article is kept, might I suggest moving the page to Yung Ro and removing the redirect? aWildthing61476 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2011 (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) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, appears to satisfy the relevant criteria (perhaps 2, 7). We should be able to construct an article out of the few sources that are available. Blurpeace 08:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this must surely be salvageable, just a case of someone finding someone who has a subscription to Billboard.biz, and / or any other verification. Pesky (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find 'em? 'coz I can't. So are you suggesting we keep this, on the off-chance that one day, someone might be able to show evidence of notability? Chzz ► 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! You horror, you! You're trying the 'obsessive' button out again, aren't you? I probably could find something, but it's far from being my area, and I certainly can't get anything within a tight deadline. Who do you know who has this subject as their area? They'll be more likely to (a) know where to look, and (b) maybe have subscriptions to the right kinds of pages. (Ball back in your court, fella, lol!) Pesky (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll leave a message at WT:WPMU, it's not too improbable some members of the project might have a subscription to the website. Acather96 (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he charted, it is definitely not #7 on R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Neither Allmusic nor Billboard has any mention of a charting. Billboard.biz does list a few extra charts (eg Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles) so I'll ask User:Legolas2186 to pop in here (he has a sub). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I was asked by Adabow to look at billboard.biz for Young Ro, however, every chart I searched by his tag lists Chamillionaire or some group. Is he related to them? I have no idea. If so, his own article seems not to pass WP:N. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chamillionaire and Yung Ro were both in The Color Changin' Click. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More importantly than notability, this is a completely unsourced WP:BLP. Sandstein 06:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Bercovich[edit]

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

Impressive list of works, but I can not verify any publication even in catalog of National Library of Israel. The es and fr WP have even less information than we do. Perhaps someone else can find something. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (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) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very busy guy whose "accomplishments" don't add up to anything in terms of WP notability. Qworty (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of microfluidics research groups[edit]

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

I don't see this list being encyclopaedic. it is simply a directory of research groups. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in a way all lists are a directory. I wish there would be lists like this for each research field, because I am sure there are undergrads interested in a filed like microfluidics who would find this useful for their grad choices. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (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) 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge or clean up to meet list-related guidelines, and then keep, nominator fails to explain how this is deletionable under policy, while it would do no harm to the project to keep this information in its appropriate place. riffic (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason for keep. It is important to explain why this is list serves a notable or encylopaedic value. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note to nominator: When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. riffic (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cited policy WP:NOTDIR. So please don't jump to conclusions. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without explanation. You say you don't see this list being encyclopedic, I say it does. Care to explain why? riffic (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is simply a directory of groups. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a List. Stand-alone lists are appropriate under guidelines. If you were to base your rationale on the applicability of notability guidelines to this stand alone list, you might have a better argument. riffic (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your WP:NOHARM argument hardly advances notability. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References such as this and this would be a decent start to satisfying the notability requirements of stand-alone lists, being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Nominator, please review WP:SALAT and tell me if you find that this is not an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. riffic (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the moment, I will let the AfD run its course. rather than responding to everything you insist I must do like it's life and death, you do not control me. your WP:NOHARM argument hardly advances notability. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for stand alone list. Also, nobody can be WP:FORCED to do anything. My advice to Riffic, back off. BelloWello (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I being forceful? I don't appreciate these accusations of bad faith. Do you have an explanation how this (with above references cited) fails notability guidelines for a stand-alone list? riffic (talk) 08:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORCED redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images for some unknown reason, did you have another policy you intended? riffic (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet white[edit]

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

Fictional video game character of whom I cannot find any information. I can't merge it because the article doesn't even say what game the character is from. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If this character is notable, someone can write an article about her that provides context and sources. That has not been done yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I can't find any references online to this character, and the fact that it's never specified what game she appears in suggests this is something made up in school one day. 28bytes (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HomePipe Networks[edit]

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

Looks a lot like an advertisement to me Eeekster (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is considered significant coverage, weak keep; if not, weak delete per WP:SIGCOV. The article does look like a big ad though. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's safe to say that nothing in "Business PR news" is significant coverage; and this is unambiguous advertising: ....provides remote access and file sharing services through any Web browser or mobile device. HomePipe is a cloud storage alternative and works on any platform and through any Internet or broadband connected device. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I did do the userfication as that is normally done upon request, and will be reversing JGreb's deletion of the previously userfied page as I do not believe that was in line with the criterion under which it was deleted. It is also inappropriate to take such an action when actively involved in a debate on the subject.Never mind, upon looking at the last version before deletion it was changed to a redirect anyway. Pursue WP:MFD if you feel strongly that these pages should be deleted entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilsi Valar[edit]

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

Not enough for a article of its own. KzKrann (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I believe the article just requires the addition of inline citations, and references to support the content. I believe deletion is unnecessary in this case. Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_Batman:_The_Brave_and_the_Bold_characters, trimming the OR in the process. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been improving the article. I have added citations and references. There is no original research, because the character has only appeared once, so far. She could appear again, but until then, this is all the accurate info, not fan info, I could find. If you can find more, that would be great. I also made the article a DC Comics Stub. Wheatmen (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding an image of her could also be helpful. Wheatmen (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case the page ends up being deleted, can you please userfy the page and move it to User: Wheatmen/Vilsi Valar as I did with the page Dee-Dee. Thanks. Wheatmen (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and not userfy on notability and plot grounds. The character appeared in a single episode of TV show, that does not establish notability - even if the show is notable. Beyond that, the article is split unevenly between plot, the larger portion, and editorial assumption. Without the assumption the article is pure plot. If there is a Wikia for Batman: The Brave and the Bold I'd suggest translating the article there. As for userfying, IIUC that is for articles that need to be worked on to bring them to basic Wikipedia standards, not retain plot dumps or material better suited to a Wikia. I'd make the same recomendation about User:Wheatmen/Dee-Dee since the artice on the DCAU Wikia is a more apropriate place for the mixture of plot and editorial inference about the characters. - J Greb (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: wikipedia is WP:NOTJUSTPLOT and there are no third party sources to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY and reception of this character, outside of what happens in the fictional narrative. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The character does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As a single-appearance character (not even a recurring minor character), I do not believe that a merge is needed at all. Jfgslo (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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