< 1 February	3 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of archery civilizations[edit]

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

List is undefined and too broad (nearly every civilization could be classed as an archery civilization at some point in history)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding anyone who uses the term "archery civilizations". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research, in that I've not seen any source that uses the term "archery civilization", and it's basically a list of blue links to articles about peoples who used the old bow and arrow. Not surprisingly, it's from 2006, early days list from when citations and interesting information were optional. The text looks like someone's notes ("Armenians Cretans Getae Parthians Sarmatians Scythians Indo-Aryans"; "Huns Avars Bulgars Magyars Cumans Korea"; "Welsh England Manchu Mongols Turkic peoples"). Back in '06, "Here's a few, can you think of some more?" was the style of lists, and may explain the dislike many people have even for well-organized list articles. We've come a long way in the last few years. Mandsford 14:24, 9 February 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 Speedy delete g3, hoax, a7, no credible claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fermin Gallegos[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Unable to verify claims in article. Appears to be a hoax in addition to failing WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Appears to be a kid with big dreams but no success yet. ... discospinster _talk 00:34, 3 February 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 Speedy Delete A7, G11 by User:Anthony Appleyard; (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Win & Win[edit]

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

Delete as company is not sufficiently notable, lacks sources and article reads as advert. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:35, 2 February 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. Discussion of renaming or merging can continue on article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dehn plane[edit]

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

Non notable - no source found other than Wikiclones. The book sources talk about Dehn never finishing a paper on it, indeed it seems only "indications" exist [1] Chaosdruid (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think that the page should be renamed then. It seems that the method is notable enough, though not named as the page title currently suggests. Perhaps we could rename to "Dehn geometery", "Dehn planar geometery" or "Dehn non-Legendrean geometery". Chaosdruid (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Max Dehn BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 07:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep, ~~possible~~ Rename Hilbert (given as a ref.) goes on for several pages about Dehn's geometry and that should establish notability. WP criteria don't specify that the primary source has to be published, only that a reliable secondary source exists. The books search turns up a precedent for the name as well, but this is in an exercise. However, most of the material in the article is apparently not covered in Hilbert so additional sources need to be found to support the content of the article. Perhaps a more inclusive subject title such as "Nonarchimedean geometry" can be found, but without the neologism.--RDBury (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, "Nonarchimedean geometry" is not a neologism and there are plenty of notability refs. Expansion is still needed though.--RDBury (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems to be mentioned in a book by Rudy Rucker ([2]), but i'm a bit wary about the cited reference in the article as Hilbert's book doesn't seem to use the term "Dehn plane". I find it neither in my German nor in my English copsy of the book. Moreover Hilbert's original book (without later extension) has less than 100 pages, so the given page 129 looks kinda fishy.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not mentioned by a particular name, that might mean only that that name seldom if ever appears. Notability of the topic isn't about notability of the particular name. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- well there's notability for both the content/subject matter itself and the name for it. We don't want to push "neologisms". If that plane is (almost) nowhere called Dehn plane, we shouldn't have an article under that name (implicating that it is a common/established term). In such a cse merge or rename might be the appropriate course of action.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I once created an article titled how Archimedes used infinitesimals. Sometimes the title of an article is a verbal description of its topic rather than a proper name. I don't think people would call it a neologism because of that. The term Dehn plane might be viewed the same way. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I agree that your first example has no neologism issues, but that's because you've picked purely descriptive article name rather defining a new term/name. The analog approach here would be something like "How Dehn constructed a non-Legendrean geometry". But if instead of a descriptive title you pick a very rarely used name, then it might pushing a neologism. Or worse if you simply make up a name then it could be seen as WP:OR (regarding the name). It's not up to wp authors to come up "appropriate" new names/terms, they either go with names being already established in literature/external sources or they pick a descriptive title (being recognizable as such).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This scanned copy of Hilbert's book (in English) should show the pagination correct; the full reference should be pp. 127-130. (Hilbert does not call it "Dehn plane"; but it is a model for the axioms of plane geometry less parallels.) Keep or merge, either non-archimedean field or projective plane should be reasonable targets for merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [3]. Hilbert cites a paper by Dehn in Math. Annalen.--RDBury (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dehn's paper is here.--RDBury (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- I think the term 'Dehn plane' is used at least in Rudy Rucker's book. You can search for that phrase in a partial preview of Rucker's book at Amazon's entry. Dehn's work is also cited in Roger Hartshorne: Geometry: Euclid and Beyond (2000), Springer. Since I can't view the full text of Rucker's book, I speculate that he may just have found a catchier way of expounding Dehn's original paper from 1900 in the Mathematische Annalen, "Die Legendre'schen Sätze über die Winkelsumme im Dreieck". Whether to keep Dehn plane as a separate article or as a redirect to Max Dehn could be up to editor discretion. Make it depend on whether anyone has time to expound Dehn's non-Legendrean geometry at proper length. I think notability is clearly met. See also this Google Scholar search for 'non-Legendrean.' There are four hits in that search that look like they might be used as references (or further reading) for the Dehn plane article if it is kept. If someone does have time to work on Dehn's idea, they might wind up renaming the article, since 'Dehn plane' gets no hits in Google Scholar and obscure titles are not the best. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 5 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petromin Corporation[edit]

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

May be advertising. Only references are from the company's own website. unsure about notabiliy Cssiitcic (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertising. I have researched this company through sources other than it's own website and listed them appropriately. Please take the deletion tag off of this article. Thanks. Eric Statzer (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times hidden behind pay walls. There is a solid article in The Hindu datelined Dubai, published November 18, 2007 that describes the company in detail. It is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Care needs to be taken when looking for sources. The indian press appears to use "PetroMin" as an abbreviated term for the Indian government's Petroleum Ministry as can been in theese examples: [4], [5]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response That is true, Whpq, but the article in The Hindi is about the Saudi company, and the English language press in India covers this specific company regularly.Cullen328 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - You hadn't included a link in your comments, and I hadn't found that article yet, and was fumbling around in the the news results. Just for future reference, if you find an article, it would be helpful to post it in the discussion so that other editors can easily evaluate it. Google's search algorithms sometimes generate different results for different people so they might not even find it. Cheers. - Whpq (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response I often edit using an Android smart phone, which enables me to do Google searches, but not to cut and paste URLs into Wikipedia. In this case, there are plenty of articles readily available that discuss this particular company in detail. Cullen328 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google news search shows that there is quite a bit of coverage about Petromin. As I noted above, some care needs to be taken with Indian press sources, but ignoring those results, there is still a lot of results including pcoverage about a planned IPO. Coverage exists over the years as evidenced by this Wall Street Journal article behind a pay wall but clearly about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq. Beagel (talk) 22:21, 4 February 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, closing this early per WP:SNOW. Mandsford 21:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Vargas[edit]

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

It's in Spanish. There's very little content. No sources. No notability established. Alex (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to have been born in 1963, played at centre, and played for the Dallas Mavericks, whoever they are. Peridon (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under WP:NBASKETBALL, a basketball player is considered notable if he was drafted in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Although he never played for the Dallas Mavericks, he does appear to have been drafted in the 2nd round. [6] I will translate this article into English, although it will probably just be an infobox at first. The article can be reconsidered once it is in English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He also meets another criterion of WP:NBASKETBALL because he played in Lega Basket Serie A, the main Italian league. I have since translated the article into English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems sufficiently notable. I've added an old Sports Illustrated article about him. Zagalejo^^^ 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm not a big fan of the "drafted in the first two rounds" guideline, but playing in the top division in Italy and Spain confers notability per WP:NSPORTS. Also, when the Sports Illustrated article is combined with links like this and others avaliable on Google News Archives, it's likely that this player meets the GNG on the basis of coverage he received before he even turned pro. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It ain't in Spanish no more... Mandsford 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The Italian league is one of the top leagues in the world. Clearly notable. Article could be stronger, but the subject is notable. Rikster2 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources indicate general notability. (Disclosure: I used to work summers at Time/Life, publisher of Sports Illustrated.) Bearian (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Irrefutably passes WP:NBASKETBALL. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems sufficiently notable. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:45, 4 February 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 Withdrawn by nominator. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Chongwei[edit]

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

Contested PROD. In my opinion fails the spirit of WP:NHOCKEY. This boils down to two main issues. 1) Is the Asia League Ice Hockey a "top professional league" a la NHOCKEY point 1? 2) Does participation in the national team in the IIHF World Championships below the top level (i.e. in Div 1 or below) satisfy NHOCKEY point 6? In my opinion neither of the above constitute notability, and thus this article should be deleted. Ravendrop (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes any national team no matter the level does meet WP:NHOCKEY which is why it says senior national team and doesn't say national team in the Championship division and follows the convention that exists in every sport that a national team appearance is notable no matter what. The point being that they are the best ice hockey players in their country. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per DJ. Whether its DIII or the Championship, having played at the World Championships for the senior national team certainly meets NHOCKEY. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Patken4 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This hockey player has played on China's senior national team [7] and therefore meets criteria#6 of NHOCKEY. The article should be renamed Chongwei Wang as Wang is his surname, and his article on the English Wikipedia should follow English (not Chinese) naming conventions. Dolovis (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you are aware per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) it is actually English naming conventions to list Chinese surnames first. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)", where it says that "There is an exception for people whose Chinese name is familiar but with English ordering (for example, Wen Ho Lee). In this case, the primary entry should be under the English ordering with a redirect from the Chinese ordering." I think this article meets the exception because the name is listed at Eliteprospects (among others) as 'Chongwei Wang', and so that should be used as the "commonly used name" for the article title. Dolovis (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that its the other way around in the leagues English website and in english newspapers and reliable websites. Definitely not a clear cut case that this player is contrary to the norm. In fact doing a websearch for "Chongwei Wang" shows that elite prospects is the only site that lists him that way. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Seems to be a pretty clear consensus that I misinterpreted the meaning of NHOCKEY #6 as only the top level of the world championships. If there is no objections (and as this has been up for 24 hours+) I'll withdraw this nomination. Ravendrop (talk) 19:05, 3 February 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 Coventry Airport. Material may be merged from article history. Jujutacular ^talk 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Coventry Airport collision[edit]

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

Although a tragic occurrence, this accident is no different or more significant than a vast multitude of other similar accidents. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia is not a database of aircraft accidents), WP:NOTNEWS (no continuing coverage in reliable sources of the accident beyond "this happened"), and WP:AIRCRASH (no significant changes to procedures or regulations and no airworthiness directives issued). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the threshold for an article at WP:AIRCRASH, accidents like this are fairly common occurrences.. - Ahunt (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coventry Airport. Though I highly doubt mid-air collisions are common occurrences, unless it can be proved that this accident in some way had a major effect on regulations and practices, the info is better off (minus the names/ages of the victims) on the Coventry airport site. Ravendrop (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the airport article, a highlight incident in relation to the airport's own history. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY and in particular the General notability guidelines. There are fewer than 50 mid-air collisions documented on WP - a far from common occurrence. Androstachys (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually the reason there are few on Wikipedia is not because they are rare, but because they are mostly non-notable. Worldwide there are over 100 mid-airs a year, mostly between light aircraft and mostly non-notable, other than to the people involved, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coventry airport per Ravendrop. Mid-air collisions between two light aircraft are not that rare in the UK. This accident is nowhere near the notability threshold, unlike the 1974 Norfolk mid-air collision, which led to major changes in practices. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Ravendrop. But any entry needs to correspond to the AAIB report and appropriately referenced. The present statement that pilots had been given "insufficient or inaccurate information" is meaningless and potentially misleading. The collision occured as such events often do due to a combination of factors. One or both pilots were unable to see the other aircraft until too late to take evading action, there was a misunderstanding involving ATC over the purpose of the Cessna flight leading to misclassification and inappropriate procedure being followed, a misunderstanding as to the specific intentions of the Cessna, an error of judgement leading to loss of separation. In general it is best to give the reference than to attempt an over-brief summary especially where it might be interpreted as attributing blame. AJHingston (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the airport as advocated above. Consideration should be given simply to starting an article about mid-air collisions in a particular year or decade. Few of them are notable enough under WP:EVENT for their own article. We have a list in mid-air collision, of course, of articles about the notable ones. Without a location where they can be referred to collectively, people end up creating a new(s) article. Mandsford 14:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it to Coventry airport, worth a mention there but not notable enough for its own article. Worm^TT 09:48, 10 February 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) 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Hero Arena[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I basically repeat my reasoning for the PROD, which is that it's basically some custom scenario for a Warcraft III; it's not notable in any way. –MuZemike 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 21:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - Accidentally re-PRODed this myself. There's zero chance of this passing notability, let's axe it and move on. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourced to internet forums in the article, I can find no better. A complete lack of coverage in reliable sources means it fails notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 3 February 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. lifebaka++ 20:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves[edit]

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

I was amazed to find that this had not been to AfD before (it was PRODed shortly after creation but was declined). In short, it's a gross violation of WP:V as it largely consists of WP:MADEUP-class content. In its current form it really belongs on a private webpage or a medical wiki of some description, though a few could be merged to List of mnemonics or the article re-written to something more like the others in Category:Medical mnemonics.

(Note: this has nothing to do with the vulgar nature of many of the entries) ninety:one 17:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be moved to Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The obvious problem with a page of mnemonics in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that anyone can make one up something where the words start with OOOTTAFVGVAH or SSMMBMBSBBMM or COSSSROSIIJJJH and then post their own version, as is the case here, many of which have cleverly incorporated parts of women's anatomy that begin with "V" and "B"... I'm sure that there are three examples that have been published in reliable and verifiable sources, so as to overcome the problems with original research, and that would fit into our List of mnemonics. If that list becomes too big, then I can see splitting off a list of medical menmonics and making it semi-protected. Mnemonics that are taught are notable, although I believe that what medical students are usually taught is to create their own versions, and none of those need to be shared with us. Mandsford 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There arr well established one, with references. If there's imaginary material, it can be removed. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as very notable [8], but let's not kid ourselves, almost all of this is "imaginary material". The mnemonic that turns up again and again is #10, "10.On Old Olympus' Towering Top A Finn And German Viewed Some Hops". [9] and [10] and [11]. The 8th nerve is the Vestibulocochlear nerve or Auditory nerve, so sometimes "Finn and German" is replaced by "famous vocal German", with Olympus and hops still part of it. Mandsford 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established, no deletion rationale has been articulated which can't be solved by regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I posted this to a *chan website a couple of days ago, and upon returning I found that all the hilarious mnemonics gone. Don't get me wrong, some of them were awful (and by awful, I mean they were fantastic) but I actually *do* study neuroscience, and probably some of the racier ones actually *HELPED* me remember the Cranial Nerves. Keeping established ones, like "On Old Olympus Tower..." doesn't help me or ANYONE in my class. In fact, I had to memorize the Cranial nerves just to remember the mnemonic with the Finn and German. Whereas, Snape doing an amusing deed to Voldemorte immediately stuck in my head.

If it's any consolation, you can still find the other versions in the article history by clicking the tab that says "history" (see?); and, if you can find something suitably ribald, including one that you learned your cranial nerves from-- as long as its been published somewhere, you can add it along with the link to where it came from. It's just that Wikipedia has its limitations, one of them being that it's no longer a bulletin board for things that one person heard from someone else or read on a blog, or that an imaginative contributors can make up see whose joke is the funniest. I'm not sure that Voldemort can still get his hand job (I think Ms. Rowling has retired) but accurate doesn't have to be boring as hell. Mandsford 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the joke entries gone, there's very little left that isn't a duplication of what's already in cranial nerve, which is where you'd look in the first place. From the history, it seems this page was only created to segregate the ever-growing list of unsourced mnemonics added by drive-by editors, which even the Keepers seem to agree don't belong. Get rid of those and the problem that necessitated the article in the first place goes away. – Þ 11:05, 30 January 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Cranial nerve. Now that the "imaginary" material has been removed this would be a simple solution that keeps the content without having a list with only a few entries. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the merge would be a bad mix, combining a medical article with one about a teaching technique. I compare it to the business article Tylenol being separate from the chemistry information in acetaminophen (which redirects to paracetamol). If it were merged, the more logical target would be list of mnemonics. Mandsford 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I feel like this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. First it was "There's too much unsourced stuff here" and then it was "Now it's a list with only a few entries!" or "You got rid of my favorite one!" Truth is, there are plenty of other published examples. I seem to see this a lot lately, people taking time to fix the problems with an article and then getting the "it still sucks" response. Mandsford 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I didn't see it at all until just before I commented here. However, I just took a look at a revision from last October and , wow, did it suck a lot worse then, so all due respect for your efforts no matter what happens here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 11 February 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. Ironholds (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep democracy[edit]

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

Delete This sounds like an essay on a topic that is original research. Markus Schulze 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the references seem to be the work of the fellow who coined the term and promotes the theory. My question is whether the theory has been covered in depth in multiple reliable souces independent of the originator, or do the other sources just skirt the edge of the topic. I am not sure and hope experts in the field will comment. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A similar article (Deep Democracy Institute) has already been deleted. Markus Schulze 15:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Smacks of social-science babble relating to a semi-proprietary term not in general use. I'm not sure whether to advise deletion or a massive rewrite, so I'll leave it at that. Carrite (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm reserving judgment on WP:N-compliance for now, just in case unambiguous RS appears, but I'm leaning toward "Redirect ~~and Merge~~ to a New Article: 'deep democracy'. Why? A brief look at some of the search results suggests that the term deserves to be associated more with sources like [12] and [13], and Cornel West's thought, which grows out of New Left and Green movement roots from what I can tell. However, these (and numerous other sources) render the term as "deep democracy". This Arnold Mindell therapeutic/philosophical movement seems to be backforming a term from deep ecology, which at times has been similarly distinguished by capitalizing its constituent words, and which also stresses the interconnectedness of all things. But deep ecology at least connects everything to underlying ecosystems. Deep Democracy doesn't seem to connect anything concrete to anything else concrete. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I'm having trouble finding RS on this Arnold Mindell sense of Deep Democracy. However, "deep democracy" might be a sufficiently coherent idea as to merit its own article, even if secondary sources treating it as a subject per se are sure to be rather scarce at this point. Short of Redirect ~~and Merge~~ to New Article: slash everything out of the current article, and add new stuff from RS like the above sources. Whatever's done, though, it should be done fast. I hear them coming. You know who I mean. Yakushima (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. This book [14] contains a chapter which might qualify as RS on Arnold Mindell's idea of Deep Democracy. This book [15] is clearly strongly associated with Mindell, but it's from a print-on-demand publisher VDM Publishing that doesn't even do any copy-editing on submissions, so it's virtually self-published. Iffy. This book [16], nods toward Mindell, and Kogan Page appears not to be a vanity press or semi-automated print-on-demand service (but check my work please -- there might be something in the fine print.) This book [17] comes from an apparently respectable academic press, Cambria Press, specializing in publishing PhD dissertations. It doesn't appear to be print-on-demand, it claims to pay royalties, and to put serious work into each book. However, the author's strong personal connection to Mindell is undisguised. This book [18] mentions "Deep democracy" as raised by Judith Green, author of one of the books above. This book,[19] from the apparently reputable Teachers College Press, has yet more references -- it doesn't mention Mindell but does mention Judith Green, suggesting that the idea is sometimes attributed to other authors who have only developed the Mindell idea further from. I'm not sure yet, but some of these sources might be sufficiently independent of Mindell to be considered truly secondary. Whether those sources have sufficient depth of treatment is another question. Though I'd say "deep democracy" in the more mainstream sense is still the far more notable topic, I might end up changing my leaning to "Redirect to Deep Democracy (group facilitation)" or something like that, clearing the namespace for a more sensible deep democracy article. Yakushima (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet further comment John Bradshaw nods toward Mindell[20][21] even as he seems to be appropriating the term "deep democracy" for himself in other sources[22][23]. In self-help/therapeutic circles, Bradshaw is, of course, the infinitely more recognizable name. And I don't see Bradshaw as apostle to Mindell -- they seem to have emerged separately. I think all this adds up to independent notability of the Mindell sense of the term. The Mindell sense might be distinct enough that a Deep democracy (psychology) and a Deep democracy (politics) (odd as the latter sounds) could be launched from a Deep democracy disambiguation page -- which might be the only way to break the apparent tie, here. Yakushima (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blank the Page per WP:IAR. I'm trying to improve the article, but it's melting my brain. It cites Siver's PhD thesis, which significantly cites this very article. There seems to be no stable definition of the Mindellian Deep Democracy even according to Mindell and his followers. It's. Just. Drivel. Having good editors work on it will only melt their brains. That's not good for Wikipedia. Have bad editors work on it will only result in yet more drivel. That's not good for Wikipedia, either. BLANK THE PAGE PER WP:IAR. Yakushima (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alright, I've pondered. This piece is a load of Original Research hooey, in my estimation: The symbiotic connection between democracy and human development is an aspect of Deep Democracy but attempts to formally define deep democracy often result in formation of a procedural approach. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 10 February 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) 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague relationship[edit]

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

Dictionary definition; neologism. IP contested prod2.

Possible WP:COATRACK spam for the website "Thought Catalog". OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does share a title with Megan Boyle's piece, but that's far more entertaining. As this stands, 'dictionary definition' is a possibility, as is essay. Possibly also Original Research as there are no references. If it came to be reliably referenced, I'd be prepared to change my mind. Unfortunately, the vague relationship is usually never referred to by name - or so I've found - but euphemisms and evasions are used. Peridon (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is an encyclopedia article then I'm a lamppost. It's an essay with no sources - WP:OR at its most trivial. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable neologism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 7 February 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 relist articles individually. m.o.p 08:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edelmiro Abad[edit]

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

Non-notable stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail to meet WP:NOTABILITY and appear to fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL.

Oppose as a group - With most I agree are nonnotable but a few that I think are like Peter J. Ganci, Jr. and Charles Edward Jones so I am going to oppose as a group. --Kumioko (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Why are Ganci, Jr. and Jones more notable than the others? Neither article lists information that would meet WP:NOTABILITY. Ganci, Jr. was merely a fire chief and Jones happened to be aboard AA Flight 11. Neither article states any information that proves notability. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the internet going to run out of room? Why do we have to delete these pages at all? Who cares about what the policy is. These people were killed in one of the worst attacks on the United States in its history. Maybe it could bring some solace to their families to know that they are remembered, or at least noticed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.224.164 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A site outside of Wikipedia can be setup as a memorial. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate them separately. Some of them might have long lasting notability. For the non-notable perhaps we can merge into a list List of victims of the September 11 attacks or something along those lines.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These really can't be judged as a group. There is no automatic notability for the over 3,000 people who died on 9/11. On the other hand, there is no automatic presumption that a person who died on 9/11 is barred from being the subject of an article. Not every person on this list is "non-notable", and each one is an individual case. In this instance, I would say Keep Abraham Zelmanowitz, Charles Edward Jones and Orio Palmer, based on non-local coverage well after the event; Ángel Juarbe, Jr. would be a weak keep. On the other hand, I would say, regretfully, Delete the pages for Edelmiro Abad, William M. Feehan, Peter J. Ganci, Jr. (weak delete), Timothy Welty, and Zhe Zeng , which appear to have been based on memorial coverage back in 2001 or 2002. Again, however, I don't think that one can really do a mass !keep or !delete on whether they died that day. Mandsford 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I overlooked Charles Edward Jones and missed the significance of Ganci. On the question posed, "Why are Ganci, Jr. and Jones more notable?", Ganci was the Chief of Department for the FDNY and the highest ranking officer [24]-- the other 342 firefighters were no less brave, but not as prominent within the department. However, the post-9/11 coverage of him seems to have been meager. Jones was a former NASA astronaut, and though there's no policy that I know of, space exploration has been given a high priority here. Mandsford 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as a group. Relist individually for the reasons previously stated. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the articles individually because they cannot be judged as a group. The people listed in this AfD have varying degrees of notability. Some pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, while others do not. I agree with the opinions advanced by Mandsford (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 22:46, 11 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Haglund[edit]

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

Non-notable biography subject. Fails WP:ATH and WP:BIO and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets two aspects of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf - he won the European Amateur, a "recognized amateur golf tournament at the national or international level" and he won at least two professional tournaments. Tewapack (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirements as winner of top-level amateur tournament, and also as a professional golfer with multiple tournament victories. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf aspects raised. Professional golfer.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 4 February 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. Any renaming discussion can take place at the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

The only content of this article is a statement that the US will compete at the event in question, and two external links. This article will certainly be worthy of inclusion in several months, but I don't see much point in including it now. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is close enough it is no "crystal ball" article. The event and the country's participation are clearly notable, and I expect coaches are being selected already. Athletes will soon be selected. Sponsorships and media coverage are going to be covered. We do not have to wait for the brink of the event. Edison (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about all the other articles in Category:Nations at the 2012 Summer Olympics? Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Edison, My reason for nomination was based on the article's Lack of content at time of nomination, not on WP:CRYSTAL, as the article did not include any speculation. I am not disputing the notability of the subject, I am merely asserting that, at the present time, there is not enough material to work with. I would also point out that in your argument, you state that you "expect coaches are being selected already. Athletes will soon be selected. Sponsorships and media coverage are going to be covered." Thats dancing pretty close to WP:CRYSTAL, IMO. Finally, while your assertions are reasonable, I don't see any sources in the article to back them up. @Lugnuts, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also @Lugnut, I looked at a few of the articles in that category, and IMO, they are just as bad as this one, as they lack sources, and meaningful content. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I looked at the one for Turkey, and it's an abortion of an article. Redirect all to the main 2012 article with the possible exceptions of Great Britain (I think they're hosting it, I'll have to check...) and the US one (more content than the others). Lugnuts (talk) 07:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I look at one of the article referred to Shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics, there is certainly meaningful comment and references. there can be here also. When we know something will happen, that it will be notable, and that information will gradually accumulate, Wikipedia can only benefit, because there will be a place to put it. Many people will be able to add it who might to be willing to start an article. I challenge the nominator to say what harm this article can possibly do to the encyclopedia , or a user. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What harm can this article cause? It can give the impression that we have low standards, specifically with respect to referencing. To me, this article is akin to an empty storefront in a newly constructed strip mall. seeing that empty storefront would make me think, wow, somebody just wasted several million dollars building a stripmall that no one wanted to occupy. See also meta:IMMEDIATISM. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concur with well-put comments by DGG. Edison (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The US has qualified athletes in the shooting events. The standard for creating these articles for the 2010 olympics was that once a nation had qualified athletes (not named) they could have a page created for them. I think that is a pretty good standard. Aside Comment However, anyone have a source for the US naming these specific shooters to compete in the olympics. If so this is a weird occurrence as most nations only name the athletes a very short time before the games. I suspect maybe that these were the athletes that won the spots for the Olympics, but are not necessarily those who will be given those spots.Ravendrop (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename I don't think it is encyclopedic to see that the US has won 0 total medals in the 2012 Summer Olympics. If there is material that belongs here, it is for an article about pre-olympic events, an article or articles that will survive the actual Olympics in 2012. See also, WP:NOT#NEWS. Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is how WP:Olympics has set as naming and stylistic convention, even if it is about pre-Olympic preperation. Ravendrop (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I couldn't find any conventions at WP:Olympics. But I looked at United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics history. This 2008 edition of the article was created as a stub 30 December 2007 and not used until 13 May 2008. Unscintillating (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 2012 Summer Olympics article. It can be unredirected and current content can be used when the time comes, probably early 2012 (or about a year from now). 64.229.101.119 (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly useful to inform people on what the USA are doing in preparation for the games. BUC (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, preparation. We should be able to agree that US preparations for the 2012 Olympics are notable. Propose rename to United States preparations for the 2012 Summer Olympics. Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think that would work because once the games take place, this article should cover that as well. BUC (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there are two issues here. 1) Is the article notable enough at this point in time and 2)What should it be titled if it is indeed notable. I think the second discussion should take place after the AfD has concluded (assuming it it kept, of course), in conjunction with the Olympic WikiProject. Lugnuts (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename because the title United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics is too indistinct for me. The article treats one sport: Shooting. I see a new title American preparation in sport shooting for the 2012 Summer Olympics with a link Shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Good Luck Everybody, --Geneviève (talk) 19:15, 3 February 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 speedy deleted per G7 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Aaron Yeshiva High School[edit]

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

Speedy G11 removed by author. You'll see why I added the speedy G11 immediately when you read this article. Raymie (t • c) 16:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What am I missing here? I see an inexperienced user trying to start an article about a secondary school, and being immediately swamped by speedy deletion notices. I assume the new user has withdrawn in bewilderment. What's promotional or advertising about a high school article? Please elaborate. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is how I see the situaton - please correct me if I am wrong. The new user made a formatting error in creating a heading in their first edit, and blanked the page. Within one minute, it was flagged for speedy deletion. Editor tried to continue but was hit with four speedies within 20 minutes. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 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. The delete arguments were stronger, but the article did improve during the AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamscape (2007 film)[edit]

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

Independent film of questionable notability - possibly self-promotional, as article creator (and main contributor) appears to be the film's director. While the article does list two reviews (both from the same source), I can find no significant coverage from independent sources, nor can I find sources that corroborate the claims of an award or TV screenings. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, fails WP:FILM, no reliable sources to establish notability. --Slon02 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the two obscure reviews listed in the article, there is this coverage in a local paper. However, this is not enough for me to say this meets notability. - Whpq (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improvements. So far (and improvements are continuing), there are 4 independent secondary reviews... 2 of original release in 2007 and 2 of the extended cut as released in 2009. While certainly what was nominated [25] was a poorly written article, what is being developed through regular editing [26] is something far more encyclopedic and of benefit to our readers. As guideline encourages that sources need to be considered in context to what is being sourced, genre reviews are acceptable and are what would be expected. Their being "obscure" to some, is not a valid reason to dismiss them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the sources adduced by MQS above and added to the article are sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search for the guy's name and the name of the film, and I found coverage. [27] Other sources have already been added to the article. Dream Focus 04:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to be coming along nicely and there are adequate sources to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per MichaelQSchmidt.Hillcountries (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has clearly gone through a thorough revamp, which includes a decent well sourced review section, confirming the notability. Worm^TT 09:55, 10 February 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) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ketsugo jujutsu[edit]

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

Non-notable self-defence school. General lack of reliable sources. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From a primary source: "As of 2009, there are 103 individuals who have graded to black belt ranks, including four of 9th dan and up." Non notable modern school. jmcw (talk) 13:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and no independent sources. The article says the art is practiced in 25 dojos worldwide and that certainly doesn't qualify as widespread. Astudent0 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was created by an SPA and is about a non-notable martial art. The article lacks third party sources and I found no independent sources that show this art is notable. I agree that being practiced in only 25 dojos worldwide would seem to fail WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 21:52, 4 February 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) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Mendes[edit]

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

Non notable director. Gnews has minimal hits, does not pass WP:GNG Worm 14:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently the author has the same name as the article. It is clearly a promotion only article. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find sources that could establish notability, and the only claim of notability that this article makes is a non-notable film. He fails WP:FILMMAKER for this reason, as his only work is not significant or well known. --Slon02 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 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 Speedy delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Hunt[edit]

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

No indications that this subject meets the criteria of WP:PROF or WP:BIO or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article/resume. Not notable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, non-notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just promotional resume. 5dsddddd (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Only a resume. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the reasons stated above. --Slon02 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional needed complete rewrite to be acceptable. EEng (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coupled with the fact that the article is WP:SPA-created, it seems fairly clearly a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking like a snowball. A busy lad from the look of it, but not different from so many other busy lads and lasses at universities worldwide. Now if only he'd played professional football for a couple of games, his place would be assured (even if his team had lost both matches...). But that's my soapbox. Peridon (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good number of publications, but that's not one of the WP:PROF criteria. What we need instead is evidence that his publications are making a big impact, and I don't see that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-note - I deleted almost everything - it was just a cut any copy paste of a copyrighted web page. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Will someone please put this article and AfD out of its misery. A classic snow delete. It is just wasting time -- no need to waste four more days of peoples' time.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:10, 6 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kerns[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Notability guidelines per verification search.--Canyouhearmenow 22:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO says that a musician who has been a member of at least two notable ensembles is presumed to be notable. Todd Kerns has been a member of at least three notable ensembles (bands) during his career. Cullen328 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will the nominator please add a signature so we know who wants the article deleted? Cullen328 (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kerns performed on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno on April 6, 2010, alongside Slash. Cullen328 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that the remark has been made regarding him being a part of notable bands and playing beside notables such as Slash. Why wouldn't we think about merging him into one of those articles? I just think it would be a better fit to put him in a place that better explains who he is and what his contributions are. The articles are not all about him, but rather the groups he is with. So, lets merge him.--Canyouhearmenow 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Easily meets notability guidelines, as there are plenty of sources that are primarily about Kerns himself:
- "Local Kid Lives the Dream with Slash", Fast Forward Weekly.
- "Todd Kerns Has Surgery for Detached Retina", Chart.
- "Age of Electric's Todd Kerns Returns with Sin City Sinners", Chart.
- "Todd Kerns Misses the Velvet Revolver Boat, Finds Himself", Chart.
- "Todd Kerns Braces Himself for a Busy 2003", Chart.
- "Todd Kerns Has Two New Albums on the Way", Chart.
- "Todd Kerns Reappearing", Chart.
- "Todd Kerns: Go Time", Exclaim!.
- "Kerns coming home", Leader Post, 3 March 2005, p. D3.
- "Kerns a 'rock-a-holic'", Star Phoenix, 24 February 2005, p. C6.
- "A Solo Todd Kerns Is Open to Beautiful Disasters", The Georgia Straight.
- "Solo gigs just fine for Kerns", Times-Colonist, 3 November 2004, p. B5.
- "High on rock: Kerns' latest effort, Go Time!, most exhilarating rock album of the year", Star Phoenix, 23 September 2004, p. D1.
- "Kerns covets GNR job", The Province, 14 February 2003, p. C5.
- "Kerns through with grieving and ready for decadent rock", The Vancouver Sun, 7 June 2001, p. C4.
  - And so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I relent. If everyone feels he is notable, then I think the article should be brought up to date to reflect his notability and I will be fine with it. SO I hereby retract my bid for deletion. Canyouhearmenow 15:12, 6 February 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 speedily deleted, unambiguous copyright infringement without any salvageable additions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruderman Brothers, Inc.[edit]

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

Non notable company. half a dozen hits on gnews, all appear to be press coverage of their announcements. Fails WP:GNG Worm 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only do the sources not show depth of coverage, but the article also fails other parts of WP:COMPANY. Also, I'd like to note that the entire article is an almost exact copy of [28]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slon02 (talk • contribs)
- I saw that, but I think the article existed before that newswire release... probably came from wikipedia, not the other way round. Worm 22:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - unlikely. And if you check the About Us link at [29], it's pretty clear that it has been copied. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. I was looking at the news release, not thinking about the company's own page. Rookie mistake. Worm 15:27, 3 February 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) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nizar al-Hanbali[edit]

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

I contested a PROD on this which said "Appears to be the biography of a person who does not meet WP:BIO interspersed with text pasted from Ibrahim al-Makadmeh". The article does claim he played an important leadership role in Hamas and suggests that Israel found him of sufficient note to target individually, and so I just thought it needs a discussion rather than a PROD. (If it is kept, it'll need some serious cleanup). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I should have also said that I've done a little Google searching and couldn't really find much, but it's always tricky with the transliteration of Arabic names and possible alternative spellings. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources are given. Marokwitz (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also couldn't find anything on this guy on Google books or the web, however as the nominator stated this is often difficult with Arabic names. However in its current form the subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No independent notability established by use of reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources is not a valid Speedy Deletion reason. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he referred to WP:BLP, and though this individual is deceased, the importance of proper referencing is still a paramount consideration (though not a speedy, like you say). bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references, poorly written, seems to have a POV issue. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: none of the information is verified and the subject as a whole doesn't appear to meet the requirements for signficant coverage per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:46, 9 February 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. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Yunque[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable book. No sources provided, no favorable google results. — Timneu22 · talk 13:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am finding plenty of sources on Google news - http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Paco+Yunque%22, 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep - Work of a notable figure in literature. It's tough going through machine translation, but the news articles would indicate that this work is a well known one in Spanish speaking countries. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addiitonal comment - A search in Google Books for English language literary criticism shows that it has attracted attention in terms of critical analysis: [30], [31], [32]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search for "César Vallejo" "Paco Yunque" returns 11,000 hits. A glance at César Vallejo reveals that this is a notable children's story by a notable author. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding plenty of discussion, even book-length studies of this work in Google Books (even in English): [33] [34] [35] [36] What is particularly worrying is that this article was nominated for deletion within 6 minutes of its creation: this can have a profoundly dispiriting effect on a new contributor, who may well have intended to expand the article. --JN 466 12:39, 9 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feliks Zemdegs[edit]

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

A malformed AfD was started by User:OdeonusIX with the following rationale: "subject is not notable enough to warrant his own page. Current record holders for speed solving should be listed under the appropriate areas in the puzzle articles." I am not taking a position at present, just tidying up. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are very few people to ever hold so many World Records at one time. The original nominator's only edits were saying that all Rubik's Cube world record holder's article should be deleted. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 23:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why a holder of 11 WRs isn't notable. He has also had coverage by reliable non-cubing sources such as this article. This does need to be rewritten though in my opinion. Specs112 t c 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe that this proposal should have been reverted on sight under WP:SNOWBALL. My argument for that position is a bit long for here so I put it on the talk page. Short version; we list competitors who are not world champions in sports such as competitive eating, arm wrestling, canoeing, bowling, and darts. See talk page for a list. Guy Macon 01:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Those who propose to delete Felik's page have to argue why pages for other individuals such those listed here in the discussion page are notable. Speedsolving not only requires skill and dexterity but incredible memory and intelligence, so someone who holds 11 world records has to be far more notable than probably thousands of others on wikipedia who have an individual page. I know that some dont want to take youtube into account, but if you have a look at the number of hits that Feliks gets on his channel it would suggest he is incredibly notable. And he has appeared countless times in the media such as:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_newsroom/20101119/od_yblog_newsroom/the-god-of-cubing

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-schoolboy-a-rubiks-cube-genius/story-e6frf7kx-1225720004320

http://video.aol.ca/video-detail/rubiks-cube-kid/216172825429201913

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/2608244/Rubiks-cubers-a-breed-apart

http://stonnington-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/all-of-a-twist-up-to-persist-in-armadale/

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/rubik-s-cube-craze-sweeps-nz-1-40-2852010

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/golfers-line-up-for-bad-boys-club/story-e6frg7mf-1225893017376

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/feliks-corners-the-cube-market/story-e6frf7kx-1225894767482

http://media.smh.com.au/entertainment/red-carpet/can-you-cube-it-feliks-can-1716190.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/feliks-speeds-his-way-to-top-of-the-cubist-world-20100726-10smb.html

http://melbourne-leader.whereilive.com.au/lifestyle/story/multimedia-fingers-fly-at-the-national-rubiks-cube-competition/

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8141760/aussie-teen-breaks-rubiks-cube-record

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/39781/

Lembasts (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rubik's cubing has become very popular in recent years with many competitions held around the world. Felik's is the best with 11 world records. Many people look up to him. This page should definitely stay.unsigned comment by User:68.6.73.90 (talk

Keep, The guy has made his mark in the world and is already a speedcubing legend. Ellwd (talk) 10:25, 9 February 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. Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wantitall.co.za[edit]

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

Article creator alleges that the article meets notability standards, two others seem to contest that point since the csd-A7 tag has been added and subtracted twice. IMO, an afd would be better suited for the article and the parties can figure out what to do with the article if it survives. I have no strong feelings on the deletion or retention of the article, it was just int he csd log and I was cruising through. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Actually, it was tagged as non-notable company first, and later I tagged it as spam before I found out about the other tag. Reads like promotion for the company. The only reference is an article about Amazon blacklisting the South African Post Office, with a small last paragraph giving a comment from someone at Wantitall. As to the notability, with 16 employees it doesn't look very big, and I don't think that being the 'third largest' in South Africa means much without knowing how bit the first two are - if third place (in sales) means anything at all in terms of notability. A point I'm not clear on is the statement "WantItAll formed a strategic partnership with Amazon.com to stock their entire product catalogue partly due to the fact that Amazon "blacklisted" the South African Post Office for deliveries.". I get the impression from the sole reference that WantItAll were already a reseller of Amazon's stuff. Whichever is right, is being a reseller for Amazon notable? How many are there - in South Africa or elsewhere? Peridon (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from talk page) Hi, I'd like advice on fleshing out the entry or adding more link and citations or information. I have stated a case on the Talk page of the entry. Please go and have a look. I would appreciate your feedback and assistance. MrDickensRob (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic comparison of top 3 online retailers in South Africa: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kalahari.net+take2.co.za+wantitall.co.za which actually shows WantItAll.co.za on 2nd spot and growing. You must note that SA has a small online retail presence. Additionally, there are no other Amazon resellers. The only place to access the Amazon USA product catalogue and get it delivered to SA is through WantItAll.co.za. MrDickensRob (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copy) Peridon (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. I still don't believe that being the no. 3 online retailer does not necessarily establish notability of the company. Shovon (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I added in some arguments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wantitall.co.za Please could I have some advice on how to make it more notable too? (Don't know if I'm allowed to write stuff here. Apologies if I'm incorrect.) MrDickensRob (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course you're allowed to !vote (once) and comment (as many times as you need). Anything relating to the discussion is best posted here, which is why I copied your post above across. We are out to get a full picture in order to get a fair decision in accordance with our policies. Have a look at WP:GNG for general notability, and WP:RS for what is a reliable source. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is that how you vote? I have added in more sources and citations as well as adding in international expansion in terms of the launch of the Brazilian site - CompreUS. Additionally, WantItAll runs Makroshop which is the online shop for South Africa's largest wholesaler Makro. Makro is part of Massmart but technically is now owned my Walmart and represents its first presence in Africa. Walmart plans to use this acquisition to expand into the continent at large. The developments in terms of WantItAll's relationship with Makroshop/Walmart have yet to be discussed, but since Walmart is such a notable company, this may prove to be a key partnership. I hope this goes further to prove notability. I have spoken to the company and they are loathe to reveal revenue numbers and since it is a private corporation they are not required to make these public. MrDickensRob (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe there are now enough non-trivial, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. —Bruce1ee^talk 10:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the WalMart planning to take over MassMart one looks irrelevant to the notability of WantItAll, and the one about CompreUS shows a planned expansion, but reeks of a press release base rather than being a totally independent article. Peridon (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources I had in mind: MoneyWeb, Gauteng Business News, Brainstorm and Mail & Guardian. They are notable publications that discuss WantItAll and its prominence in the South African online shopping arena. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The M&G and Brainstorm ones don't look too bad. Bit brief, but these things often are (can be better than a load of waffle anyway...) Peridon (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now it has a few decent sources. Coverage isn't massively detailed but appears to be just enough to establish notability under WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantine (Artist)[edit]

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

Biography of a musical artist who would fail to meet notability standards in WP:ARTIST even if all the currently stated (unsourced) claims in the article about her are true. Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper sources provided, and GS only finds self-published stuff. Admittedly difficult to search, given the many hits for her namesake. Furthermore, the present article comes close to meeting the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 4 February 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) 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Hayssen[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL and WP:AUTHOR, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Sole claim to significance is the appearance in the anti-anorexia campaign for which she was briefly interviewed on several national news programs, but this seems to fall under WP:ONEEVENT. The article has been mostly scrubbed of WP:PROMO from the original version, but the unsourced personal info submitted by the creator suggests WP:AUTO or at least WP:COI. Borkificator (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole reference merely goes to a directory listing for Make Me Over Productions and doesn't mention Hayssen anywhere. No indication of notability that I can see. Article created by NS1973, which is the subject's first initials, but a date four years before the birth year given in the article. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the original version. OMG! Peridon (talk) 10:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No cites, questionable notability. Eric Cable | Talk 16:17, 4 February 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 all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one songs on American Top 40 of 2004[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced lists that come from a radio program with unsourced and questionable methodology. Even the American Top 40 article says AT40 "began using an unpublished chart on a weekly basis for the first time in its history" beginning in October 2000. The chart seemed to be a variant of the CHR/Pop chart provided by Mediabase". Even the Mediabase Top 40 published in USAToday seems to differ from however this list is compiled. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep can easily be sourced at Select Category section of there page. As for methodology not realy relevant as its a list from THERE POV to begin with and is y they have there own charts. The article is not about the reliability of there charts - its just there chart as appose to many others. Moxy (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure who they are, but how does that make it any different than a Radio Disney or an MTV video countdown then? I see no significance of reaching number one on this chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable information; no reason to keep chart info related to a chart listed on WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: unsourced and unverifiable lists. JacksOrion (talk) 10:02, 10 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Boutcher[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Mayors of small cities are not notable, per the nominator. There isn't any other claim to notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:34, 1 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has never received attention from any secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 09:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 2 February 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) 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky ASWA[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only source is a blog post. Google search produced only one hit except for Wikipedia, and that one is nonsense page apparently written by a child. PROD was removed by the author without comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Note that the article is about a wrestling brand: a brand currently in American Samoa Wrestling Association in American Samoa. (So that's where the American Samoa Wrestling Association operates!) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and I found no reliable sources on this subject. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 5 February 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homebrew Channel[edit]

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

Article claims to be a "notable hack" for the Wii, but does not supply sourcing that establishes WP:Notability. In addition, I'm a bit leery of having instructions that can be used to pirate games. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see convincing sources. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't really care about the 'piracy' side of things here (ask me my opinion on piracy another time). However, this article, as it stands, doesn't assert notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While in general illegal activity can be the subject of a Wikipedia article if it satisfies our content policies (like WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.), this article's lack of reliable independent sources indicates that it does not meet WP:N. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Change to keep per Teancum, who has provided evidence of coverage that can be used as sources for the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a WikiProject Video games reliable sources search turns up decent coverage at Kotaku, 1UP, and Joystiq and Eurogamer. A simple search for sources turned up plenty of usable hits, with Kotaku and Joystiq providing extensive coverage (over 50% of the hits). Obvious keep. --Teancum (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if there are sources, they should be cited in the article. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:54, 4 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-promotional in tone with adequate sources in the world to constitute notability. Carrite (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The identified sources establish notability, but need to be used for the article. Some work could be done to describe exploits without sounding like an installation guide. Wii homebrew is a potential merge topic pending expansion with the reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 15:03, 7 February 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 Oakland Unified School District. Col. Warden makes a valiant effort, but which is still insufficient. I must say that the "Speedy keep" vote is appropriate; what should have happened is that this AfD is speedy closed and a merge discussion takes place on the talk page. As for the specific arguments: Having previously survived an AfD is not a reason for keeping. The quality of the merge target is also unimportant. And the sources are local, which would be typical of any elementary school. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker Highlands Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Typical elementary school, with no indication of notability, beyond things like new principals over the years. Elementary school articles are usually redirected to a collective article about the school district, in this case Oakland Unified School District, which has a list of elementary schools at List of Oakland California elementary schools, which includes mention of this school. Edison (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Also, the article has been previously Kept at AFD. Also, the proposed target, Oakland Unified School District, looks far worse than the current article and so the proposed action would make our content worse, not better. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a specious argument for speedily keeping this article. The nomination said it had "no indication of notability," beyond run of the mill local and routine coverage. Lack of notability is the basis for most deletions in AFDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes# Education says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." That is consistent with the nomination. Also, the target article for redirect,Oakland Unified School District, can be edited if problems are found. It seems far superior to the average article about a school district. Edison (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The general policy is that elementary/primary/first schools are not in themselves sufficiently notable to justify their own entry. There can be exceptions, but there is nothing in the article to suggest exceptional notability here. Improving the school district article seems a good idea. AJHingston (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and merge if possible. Our established practice is that primary schools are not generally notable apart from exceptional circumstances, and that we offer the compromise of salvaging what we can and merging and redirecting. A well written article, however much written in GF, does not make its subject notable. To make an exception would risk creating a precedent for WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. I've started a clean up of the school district page for use s a possible destination for a merge, otherwise the page can be simply redirected to the existing list of schools. Kudpung (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)BTW: If this article is pruned and copyedited to remove the non essential banter, there won't actually be too much to have to merge.Kudpung (talk) 03:46, 29 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge Except for WP:NHS, WP:SCHOOL amounts to WP:ORG, from which we have this passage: "[Non-commercial] [o]rganizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school [...]) may be notable if there is substantial [RS] outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Even the most prominent event in this school's history -- a shooting incident in early 2008-- was reported only in neighboring counties besides its own (e.g., Contra Costa, San Francisco) in the same metropolitan area. Yakushima (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article cites multiple third-party reliable sources (dating from 1929 to 2008) about various aspects of the school. The school community's involvement in responding to the shooting of a student and its being the center of an effort to encourage more people to send their kids to public schools appear to me to be indicators of significance. Most of the various "keep" reasons provided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crocker Highlands Elementary School also are still relevant. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the reasons were essentially sympathy for a well-written article. But there's still only a description of the building, and routine coverage by local papers of new principals, That's not enough fto break the usual rule that elementary schools are not individually notable unless there's something truly exceptional. The other side of the coin for accepting the notability of high schools was the restriction on elementary schools, and I'm equally opposed to destroying either side of one of our few working compromises. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is well-written and sourced, it should be kept — this is our policy. The idea that an article of this sort should be sacrificed to appease some party to the bizarre deal which you describe seems preposterous. Shall we start bartering asteroids for comets or sub-species for breeds? It is well established that editors do not own articles and so these articles are not your property to trade or negotiate with. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DGG. It's already been stated that being well-written does not make it notable. Sympathy, unfortunately, is not a recognised AfD argument. I'm nevertheless still offering the compromise that we merge what we can to the school district or locality and leave a redirect. Kudpung (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colonel Warden, the policy you link in your argument-from-policy (WP:PRESERVE) is headed "Try to fix problems", not "We should keep every article that's well-written and well-sourced." The policy's first sentence is "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." The problem that apparently can't be fixed in this case has already been flagged: WP:N. But it can't stay flagged that way forever. If AfD discussion concludes that there is no WP:ORG notability, the time for "flag" is over, and the time for "remove" has arrived. In the case of failing WP:N, the only way to remove the problem is to remove the article itself. Nothing else logically follows from this policy you yourself cite in support of your WP:SK vote. This does not necessarily entail wholesale removal of the article text from Wikipedia. In fact, WP:PRESERVE says, "Instead of deleting text, consider [several other measures, including] merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect ...", which is precisely what some others (including myself) advocate above. As for the other issue raised -- personally, I don't like the WP:NHS "barter" deal (if such it was), and I would be willing to fight that policy battle wherever is most appropriate. I also don't like talk of "compromise" when application of principle suffices. But here is not the place to hash those things out. That's not what's at stake here. This is an AfD discussion, WP:ORG appears to be the applicable guideline, and we should stay on track with it. It seems this school fails WP:ORG. If so, feel free to make your case from "common sense", for one of those "occasional exceptions", if you can. But please, not by putting words in the mouth of policy that doesn't actually say what you clearly imply it says. Yakushima (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the topic is not notable is counterfactual - the article before us has better sources than the merge target you favour which is a pile of junk. DGG's proposal is even worse because he proposes that this article, sources and all, be deleted completely. This is quite contrary to the policy WP:PRESERVE and seems instead to be in support of some hostage deal which he has made with other parties. That deal does not seem to represent general policy as one is not cited and so is a weak argument. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel, I think you need to look up "counterfactual". You seem to think it's a synonym for "wrong". If you think it's wrong to say the school is not notable under the relevant guideline (WP:ORG), you still need to say why, in order for your vote to have any real weight in this AfD discussion. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a WP:SK in the face of a wall of Delete/Redirect/Merge votes, some of them argued closely from guidelines, is an extraordinary claim). As for your rationale, it's as weak, if not weaker, than your citation of WP:PRESERVE when that policy actually indicates Redirect and Merge in this case, if not outright Delete. It's irrelevant to this article's notability that it might have better sourcing than its candidate merge target. We're under an obligation to improve the merge target, too, so the fact that this article is better sourced only means that such a merge would improve Wikipedia as an information resource (not as a work of fine literature; see below) in two ways: (1) the merge target gets better sourcing and more information, and (2) a non-notable school no longer has its own article, which could only attract more WP:OTHERSTUFF rationalizations in other AfD discussions, further bogging them down. Your argument seems to be based largely on how the resulting merge would "look". There is no policy requirement about article esthetics; in fact, it's emphasized (WP:IMPERFECT) that perfection is not required. Notability for an article's subject, on the other hand, definitely is required. So it's back to the core issue. That is, how does this school pass WP:ORG, given that WP:SCHOOL defaults to WP:ORG when WP:NHS is inapplicable? You still haven't even touched on that yet. And the more you avoid it, the more likely you'll be accused of disruptive editing on this AfD. So consider addressing it directly in your next comment. Yakushima (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My meaning is that your statements are contrary to the facts; they are mistaken, false and incorrect. Notability depends upon sources and this topic has better sources than the proposed alternative. Your talk of WP:SCHOOL and WP:NHS is weak because those are essays not policies and we prefer policy-based argument here. Their essence is that of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is a notoriously weak argument here. WP:PRESERVE, on the other hand, is a policy and arguments based upon it therefore stronger than such stuff. Regarding disruption, please note that this is "disrupting progress toward improving an article". Note also that WP:DEL states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". This topic has already been through AFD and got a clear result of Keep. Trying to delete it again is a form of double jeopardy which is both disruptive and uncivil. Wikipedia has an explicitly educational mission and so it seems disgraceful that articles about respectable educational institutions should be harassed in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"My meaning is that your statements are contrary to the facts; they are mistaken, false and incorrect." Or in a word of one syllable: wrong. "Notability depends upon sources and this topic has better sources than the proposed alternative." Notability depends not only on sources, but the quality and relative reach of the sources. WP:ORG calls, in this case, for more than merely regional coverage. This school hasn't gotten that. Also, the "proposed alternative" is the school district article, which, when this article is merged into it, will have at least the same sources, if not better. "Your talk of WP:SCHOOL and WP:NHS is weak because those are essays not policies and we prefer policy-based argument here." WP:SCHOOL and WP:NHS are guidelines, not "essays", and my "talk" of them was entirely to point out that the default, given that neither of them cover the case here, is WP:ORG. Which you still fail to address. "Their essence is that of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is a notoriously weak argument here." No, their "essence" for our purposes, if you'll bother to look, amounts to the guideline (not "essay") WP:ORG, which you still fail to address. "WP:PRESERVE, on the other hand, is a policy and arguments based upon it therefore stronger than such stuff." Yet when I reason directly from WP:PRESERVE, to show that it actually prescribes something more like Redirect and Merge, you ... simply ignore my reasoning. "Regarding disruption, please note that this is "disrupting progress toward improving an article"." If, by "this", you mean "this discussion," please note that you may be disrupting progress toward improving the article about the school district, since the useful content in this AfD article might be merged there. "Note also that WP:DEL states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."." Yes, but note the immediate context: the case of repeatedly renominating without much delay. The first AfD for this article was a while back: in early March, 2008. Has WP:ORG changed significantly since then, in its applicable parts? It seems so -- see diffs here [37] (Search on "Nationally famous local organizations") I'd address the rest of your comments, but they seem to amount to huffing and puffing over Wikipedia's educational agenda. Look: if there's Redirect and Merge, pretty much the same material will still be available, just in another (hardly unrelated) article. So what's the difference, "educationally"? If the result is Delete, how wouild that deletion block anyone else on the internet from googling on "Crocker Highlands Elementary School" and getting the very first link they get now: the website for that school? How does it prevent anyone from searching Google News on the same terms? Yakushima (talk) 09:58, 4 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WildVenture[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline and WP:ORG. I can find no references to it in any news articles. It is also written like an advert. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination, borderline G11 speedy: a small volunteer organization for conservation, research, and community support projects. Many conservation and community projects are currently helped by WildVenture's volunteers, promotion and funding.[citation needed] Each expedition works with local experts in their field and have qualified personnel on site. The only reference that isn't purely self published reveals that one of the founders has written a paper about the dormouse. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 26 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm could be hesitant about this because of WP:CLUB, since the scope of this organization can be considered international. However, it clearly states that the organization has to meet both standards, and the second one just happens to be about multiple third-party sources. This is something that the article lacks and something that I could not find. Of the five sources that the article currently has, one is the organization's website. The other four don't mention the organization, or include a passing mention if they do. This shows that the organization is not notable, since sources are really what determine notability. --Slon02 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 3 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joker (2011 film)[edit]

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

~~Unsourced future film - fails WP:NFF. Has been previously prodded - was unprodded with no comment. Has had ((unref)) removed previously. PamD (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Withdraw nomination: has now been provided with multiple references and although it's still not clear whether photography has started it seems notable and likely to materialise. PamD (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Find sources provided by the AFD template in this case is absolutely useless. Ample sources appeare available through more applicable search parameters Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue improvements, or Incubate for a short while. Multiple sources speak toward this film.[38] With respects to the nominator, what began as a stub with no souring,[39] is proving quite easy to expand and cite.[40] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no evidnce yet that the film is "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" as required by WP:NFF. One of the added refs, the one which mentions filming planned for 20 Jan to 20 Feb, is about a different film. PamD (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With repects, the SNG NFF is not the final nor absolute arbiter, as both policy and guideline allow consideration of anticpated future events. But might you agree that taking it off of mainspace and placing it in incubation for continued work could be an otherwise reasonable option? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an Akshay Kumar film, this is a high profile film. I interpret this interview dated jan 24 as saying filming has begun as the earlier news reports stated. ("Akshay Kumar is being directed by Farah's husband Shirish Kunder"). Kind of confirmed by this ("Shirish kunder directed ‘Joker’ is in the making") and this. There is enough GNG for us to keep this article. We can Afd it again in a few months, if the film stalls--Sodabottle (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... if filming has commenced, then we worry less about NFF and more about WP:NF. I agree with your reasoning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 9 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 2 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noron theory[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

All my searches for reliable sources on this subject, have failed to find any reference to "Noron theory" (or anything related) outside of wikipedia and its numerous mirrors. This strongly implies that no WP:RSs on the subject exist. In particular, this "theory" fails to be WP:N (if it exists at all).T R 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC) T R 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-0 Ghits. "Retarded time" has a lot of coverage and its own Wikipedia article. However, a link to this article was deleted by User:Larsobrien on the grounds this is pseudoscience. Also, article ackowledges non-notability and gives off vibes of WP:OR, as it states that "The Noron theory has not penetrated mainstream astrophysics and is not well known, as Hills is continuing research on the Noron theory and has not yet published it." Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a neologism and non-notable fringe theory. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from being totally ignored, it isn't even particularly original. It's a very minor science fiction plot device even if it did spawn the hit song "Na Noron Ron" Clarityfiend (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite a hoax but totally fringey Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Unsourced. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Searched for source, found it here. Wallacetrundle (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that blurbs and ads are not reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Did you click on his link? It's not an ad - it's a book. ISBN 1156622859 122.104.146.215 (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ad for a book by a bookseller. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Are you suggesting I am going to have to buy the book to determine whether this article is verifiable? 122.104.146.215 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or find the book in a library. Simply knowing that there is a book that says it discusses "Noron theory" is not enough to establish notability. For all we know the book may simply reprint what is in the current wikipedia article. In fact, looking at the excerpt given, it seems likely that that book is just an integral reprint of the the category:time travel.T R 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books LLC does seem to reprint Wikipedia content. Per WP:BURDEN you need to supply the relevant quote from the book and indicate how it relates to the article. --Kkmurray (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have retrieved the book from my university library. I cannot retype the discussion of the Noron Theory here - it will take too long. The discussion would appear to be quite different from what is on Wikipedia however. Anyone have some ideas? --haxmax (talk) 11:29, 01 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.158.15 (talk) [reply]

Burden is still on you to produce a reliable source. Also, don't forget to log on and properly sign your comments. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:06, 2 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why more discussion? Consensus is clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Because according to Noron Theory, we live in retarded times. Yakushima (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article originator is WP:SPA, and the sole book source IDed above is reported by Google Books to be sourced entirely from Wikipedia [41]. WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and not even notable fringe. Yakushima (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone recently notified me of this article, and I had to create an account just to comment here. Although I was aware that my theory had been circulating the halls of Cambridge for some time, I had no idea it had penetrated Wikipedia (I am still unsure whether to be flattered or insulted). I had mentioned the theory briefly in lectures at Cambridge prior to transferring to ALMA, and obviously one of my keen students has produced an article from the scant information from me. The present article slightly misrepresents the true Noron theory (which is much more involved than what is presented in this article); nevertheless, the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in). The Noron theory has been published in peer reviewed journals (ESO Messenger), but not under the name 'Noron theory', which is the code name I gave it after the passing of my cat, Noron (I have never heard of Jayesh). Should the article be kept, I would be happy to transfer some of my research into the article over the next few weeks/months but I cannot make promises regarding dates as I have enough deadlines I need to worry about. RichardHills (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)— RichardHills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well, that basically confirms that this article does not meet the notability requirements of WP:N.T R 12:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also ESO messenger is not a peer reviewed journal, see [42].T R 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the theory's own originator tells us it's generally unknown outside "the halls of Cambridge." EEng (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment RichardHills: "the theory exists and is globally notable (or at least in the astrophysics circles I travel in)." Those must be some very tight circles. Googling on "Richard Hills" and "retarded time" in google scholar, books, and groups produces no discussion whatsoever. Is it not just that the theory is under a different name, but also all the terms used in the theory? Can you give us a theory name under which it is notable, by Wikipedia's (possibly insulting, at least to RichardHill) standards? Yakushima (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read the book which is listed above, and it would appear to confirm the scientific rigour of the Noron Theory. I have scanned the relevant chapter of the book, but it cannot be uploaded here as evidence. Also, I notice the comments for R. Hills, who states that his theory is been largely accepted by his peers. Christopher tomline (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)— Christopher tomline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply There is no need to upload the scan of the book for any kind of verification. As far as we can tell, the book section that addresses this supposed Noron Theory derives from the AfD Wikipedia article in question. The book is from a print-on-demand "publisher" -- it costs them next to nothing to list a non-existent book on Amazon, in hopes that somebody will (perhaps only by accident) do a one-click impulse buy. It also costs them next to nothing to print the Wikipedia articles out with some boilerplate and send it in the mail. Yakushima (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fringe work. Eeekster (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. All keep !votes thus far originate from single purpose accounts.T R 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to jump on Hills. He said right out that he created an account to come here to discuss, so he wasn't trying to sneak in as an SPA. The other accounts surely are SPAs but there's no reason to think they are Hill -- maybe some students -- I get the clear feeling Hill knows nothing about WP:N and came here because someone directed him to the discussion. This is a clear delete so let's drop it. EEng (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I said "keep" and this is not an SPA.Haxmax (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet. .... I have been a registered user for three years. How does this make me a "newly registered user"? Haxmax (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed a clear delete, as you;ll see in the next few days. And you are a veritable archetype of an SPA [43], plus there's something fishy going on with you as well. [44] [45] EEng (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ [multiple recommendations from same editor] This is more than just a dictionary definition, and upon reading the book it is evident that there is a lot more you can include in this article. Haxmax (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)— Haxmax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete This article should be deleted promptly. It contains a link to my web page at the Cavendish and claims that I originated this theory, which I did not. The article has just been pointed out to me and I consider that it has no scientific merit whatsoever. The entries above purporting to come from me are not from me. If there is a way of banning from Wikipedia the impostor who posted those entries, then I suggest that you consider doing that. It is obviously unacceptable to pretend to be somebody else in order to try to gain credibility for their unsupported theories. Richard Hills, Prof of Radio Astronomy, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.0.129 (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any passing admin, please attend to this odd situation... See post immediately above -- if closure is possible now, let's do it. EEng (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that any of the claimants is genuine. Suggest put it on AN/I and delete swiftly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am not sure if this is the real richard hills or some imposter. there are now two people claiming to be richard hills poting comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.248.131 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no scientist but a friend of Haxmax who is I know he holds a Phd in science is. We saw this "Noron Theory" some time ago and found it interesting. I have since heard it disscussed on the ABC radio with Richard Fidler some time ago. I believe it has merit in concept. Ian Harbottle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.169.157 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 121.208.169.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ There would now appear to be overwheling evidence for keeping this article. I suggest that we can stop editing this discussion, and revert to improving the main article.Haxmax (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick tally of votes: four votes for 'delete' and six for 'keep'. Lets move on from this trivial discussion, and as suggested, we should continue to contribute to the underlying science of this theory. Christopher tomline (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Christopher tomline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Heartily agreed Chris - science should not be hindered by trivial naysayers. Rocket Scientist01 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Rocket Scientist01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Others have claimed that this is a non-notable fringe work. This is clearly incorrect. If a book released by a reputable publishing-house includes a comprehensive discussion of the Noron Theory, then this is irrefutable evidence to the contrary.Cameron mcleod (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)— Cameron mcleod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources + lots of pile-on !voting by new accounts suggests a hoax, or at least a very unnotable theory. First Light (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all participants, especially the newcomers who may not be aware of how this works: This is not a poll, it is a discussion. Arguments with a solid basis in Wikipedia policies are given greater weight. Most relevant here would seem to be the policies on fringe science and notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - with hopes that the particularly obvious sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets involved will be thoroughly investigated. Non-notable, nonsensical fringe theory without any basis or notice anywhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - clearly some users have a hidden agenda, and are trying to delete this notable theory for no apparent reason. Ferris Claire (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — Ferris Claire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Delete - Simply because these immature sockpuppets/meatpuppets are trying so hard to have it kept and the vast majority of respectable Wikipedians support deletion; if it's notable enough to be kept these sockpuppets wouldn't have to resort to voting fraud to try and save it. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support deleting this, although interstingly Professor Richard Hills appear to support keeping this article. Sock purpet (talk) 04:58, 5 February 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 love me some old school punk rock, but notability is not inherited. I saw some of these same bands at other no-name clubs, and GG Allin would play anywhere they would let him get away with all the broken glass, bodily fluids, etc that accompanied his shows. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're a fcuking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.144.20 (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space at Chase[edit]

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

Assertions of notability are not backed up by references, nor can any significant coverage be found to cite. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. I've not done an exhaustive search, but did find this gem at http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=41&threadid=37095 "I saw GG at a tiny, crappy bar-back-room called Space At Chase". It would seem to me that the performance of GG Allin was the main notable feature of the place, but as he did similar things elsewhere, this is perhaps not real notability after all. The Space at Chase is also at AfD - is it possible to combine the two or speedy one under A10? The two have identical creation times and nomination times! (And content...) Peridon (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Space at Chase has been redirected to Space at Chase as it was a duplicate article created by the same author. If Space at Chase is deleted, the resulting cleanup should include the redirect as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought of doing that but wasn't sure if it was allowed. Peridon (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article certainly asserts notability. Here is a NYT story, although it's really just a local night-life thing that covers other places too: NYT So we have: Place exists, it seems to be fairly important in the punk music field, coverage in relible source, marginal keep.Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, no. All we have is "the place existed." There is no evidence that it was any more important in the punk music scene than any of the hundreds of other punk clubs that existed in the 90s. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chris 'TEK' O'Ryan

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

This smells like a violation of WP:PROMO and WP:AUTO. The creator and main contributor, User:BrittyGirl, is a single-purpose account, probably the article's subject himself. Anyway, I don't see how this meets WP:ARTIST. bender235 (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Winning a major award in your industry -- an Academy Award, a Grammy, the Turner Prize, etc. -- tends to grant notability, as such awards are widely publicised, and those they are awarded to tend to be well-known in their business, and thus will have coverage in their industry's publications. However, I'm finding it difficult to find any third-party reliable source coverage beyond the mere fact of the award. Can anyone else help dig out a cite, perhaps to an industry publication? -- The Anome (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question is, too, whether there actually is a source for him winning the award. A Google News search for this guy returns zero results. --bender235 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on what I have found so far. The article claims that he was credited with winning a Grammy for Mary J. Blige's album Growing Pains. However, a search at Grammy.com (scroll down for "Past Winners Search") for the title "growing pains" indicates that the album won Best Contemporary R&B Album, but the credited winners were "Mary J. Blige, artist. Dave Pensado, Jaycen Joshua & Kuk Harrell, engineers." Since O'Ryan is not mentioned as one of the engineers credited for this award, this is a significant detriment to the claim of his notability. While the subject does appear to have worked on notable albums and for notable recording artists, his usual role as a recording engineer does not tend to put him in the public eye, nor has he received any significant media coverage about himself personally as far as I can find. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Without a cite to back up the Grammy Award, or any other news coverage to establish notability per WP:BIO, I'm afraid this looks like a delete, unless someone can come up with a cite in the next week or so. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The GRammy "win" was actually for a 2008 album. See [46]. He is not listed in the award credits. Not everyybody who works on an award winning album is considered to have won the award. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find any significant coverage, nor can I verify that the subject was credited for a Grammy for his work with Mary J. Blige. O'Ryan is listed as one of the Teenage Dream engineers on the official Grammy site (see Category 2, "Album of the Year"), and the description under the heading makes it seem like he would get an award if the album wins in a couple weeks. Anyway, that's all I could come up with. Gongshow ^Talk 02:57, 28 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like a resumé, complete with the 8x10 glossy. There are millions of sound engineers and producers out there without Wiki articles. The person is not notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. -- Cactusjump (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but the question is which of these millions do merit a Wikipedia article. some will, but how to we tell, given that their contribution is not as prominently publicized as the artists themselves?. To what extent can we go by their work on a notable project where their contributions, though not as important as the prize-winning artist, were obviously essential?. I'm asking these as questions, because I don't claim to know the answers. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 3 February 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. Possible merger to Albanian Resistance of World War II. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of Albania[edit]

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

Discussion was misplaced on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APOX, thus moved. Travelbird (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One line page thats only been edited by two users. No notability. Delete or and merge into an albanian page. --K1eyboard (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable event. I'm aware the the people there did not feel very liberated at the time. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, of course it needs expansion but there is no reason to delete.Polyamorph (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Redirect to Albanian Resistance of World War II , where this very notable part of history is already covered with the detail that an encyclopedia is supposed to have. "Liberation of Albania" is a logical search term, and should direct the reader to something more than the lone sentence "The Liberation of Albania is considered to be the liberation of Albania from nazi Germany forces on November 29, 1944." Fortunately, other people wrote about this already. Mandsford 13:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gene93k's point above: yes, this is highly notable, but no, it does not require a separate article. Yakushima (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It just requires expansion. The resistance lasted 5 years and this was the final act. There is some notability as to the fact that there is a lot of discussion in Albania as to whether it was a chosen date to have the same liberation day with the Yugoslavs or because it just happened to be that day. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I also added a book from historian Bicoku that treats exclusively about this day and the falsification of documents to claim that the last German soldier to leave Albania did so in November 29, while this is not corresponding to the historical truth. You may delete for now as I don't have access to the book, but I find copy pasted pieces of the book in several blogs such as this, which I cannot rely on for now. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't be opposed to an article about an Albanian national holiday commemorating the decided date at which liberation was considered final. But otherwise, "the liberation of Albania" describes what that was and how it was done, from beginning to end. An existing article already does that. Yakushima (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Then would you oppose a rename to Liberation Day (Albania)? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about liberating Albania from the communists, or from the Ottoman Empire? 64.229.101.119 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That thought occurred to me also, but neither of those involved partisans fighting to liberate a nation from an occupying force. In the case of the Communists, it was a relatively peaceful transition from one Albanian government to another, and Albania had cut its ties with the Soviets many years before that. As for the Ottoman Empire, the creation of Albania and other states was something imposed by the victors on the vanquished after the Central Powers surrendered. Like Yakushima, I'm not opposed to this being about what's referred to there as Liberation Day or "Dita e Çlirimit". Maybe this can be renamed Liberation Day (Albania), and we can be done with it. Looking back on it, I think that the person who created this was simply wanting to write a sentence or two about why November 29 is a holiday, rather than the CliffNotes version of the history of the Albanian resistance movement. I'm not sure why people think that this is the first time that the topic has ever been written about on Wikipedia. Mandsford 14:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I as a newbie, created this article, and didn't think it would create such a mess. It simply is the Liberation Day or "Dita e Çlirimit", as the Independence Day is November 28, 1912 (Albanian Declaration of Independence). I agree to moving it to Liberation Day (Albania). --Brunswick Dude (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Well, sometimes people search wrong, and read too lazily, and jump to conclusions. People like, well, me. Sometimes,[47] anyway. :-( Yakushima (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure or redirect -- We could have an article on a holiday and its origin, but the present article has too little content to survive and (if not restructured like that) should be redirected as Mandsford suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should be expanded but stubs don't need deletion. --Vinie007 20:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did some expansion --Vinie007 21:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Albanian Resistance of World War II. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw my original !vote for "obvious redirect", based on Vinie007's excellent work, since that's no longer an obvious suggestion, and improvements should be encouraged. To some extent, though, I agree with Nipsonanomhmata-- it would work just as well to make Vinie's information as a section in the other article (a merge) and to preserve the title Liberation of Albania as a redirect to that section, i.e., a redirect to "Albanian Resistance of World War II#Liberation Day". Just some thoughts there. Mandsford 02:20, 9 February 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) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas John Stanford[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Amongst the references that are not dead links and mention the subject at all, facebook, myspace, metal archives, and nocleansinging. None appear to convey adequate notability to meet WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best known as part of a non notable band. Delete for the same reasons as his band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:49, 4 February 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) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bateman[edit]

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

Two things brought this AfD into being, one of them more important than the other. First, an editor who claims to be the subject of the article has been trying to gut it and nominate it for deletion, and that drew my attention. Second, though, the only notable position that the subject has had, as far as I can tell, was deputy mayor of a township of 15,000. I can't find anything else of interest, just a few things related to unsuccessful Republican runs for office. I don't see how this subject is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somebody who actively seeks to erase his name from record is suspicous. Maybe he stole some money from the township and wants to disappear. Or maybe he's planning to kill his wife. We'll be reading about him soon on the newspapers. Just kidding, delete.--Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As this appears to be a "joke", I think the highlighted preference can be safely ignored.—RJH (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deputy mayor and unsuccessful candidate for higher office, so does not meet notability standard for politicians. No evidence of substantial media coverage. Warofdreams talk 10:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 4. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past precedent and specific guidelines; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very minor politician who ran for congress twice, losing once in the primary and once in the general election. The article had not been updated since the spring of 2010, before the 2010 primary (which he lost); I have added the information to bring it current. No point in a merge or redirect (which election would you redirect to?). --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 10 February 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. The notability of the Society as a whole does not transfer to every member, early or not. The founding of this Society is surely important to its members but it is was not an event of national consequence so grand that being somewhat associated with it confers automatic notability. If the "immortal seven" are not otherwise notable it may be wise to examine the wisdom of having articles for each of them as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pike Clinton Ross[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being an early member of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list, while the others, as a catalog and manual of the Society are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability here. Simply being a member of a club or society does not confer notability. 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I listed him as "an early member" because the sources differ on his level of involvement in the founding of the society. This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered six different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:09, 27 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country.John Milito (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He did not "found" a society, he is merely "associated with the founding". He was apparently one of the original members [48], but the same reference states very clearly (page 5) that the Phi Alpha Literary Society had seven founders, "the Immortal Seven", and this subject is not one of them. The society may qualify as notable, but its founding is not a "highly significant" event, and he did not "play a large role" in its founding. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 10 February 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu[edit]

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

This article has no references, no categories, claims to be some sort of tantric sex thing, and is overall full of what appears to be utter bullshit. I tagged it as db-a7, but apparently it's a religious/philosophical doctrine (which it isn't), and then I prodded it, but apparently it was a lazy prod and notability is easily verified, but isn't. I don't know if this is real or just some pseudo-religious bullshit that's being promoted here. I am fairly certain that in the current state of the article, it should not be kept.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, either this is a hoax, or it's an unverified story without the references to back it up. Either way, it's not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/re-stub. Not a hoax. Corresponding Japanese wp article: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%8B%E5%B7%9D%E6%B5%81_(%E5%AF%86%E6%95%99) Shii (tock) 05:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese and German language are also of dubious quality and very little coverage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without any references to verify the facts, this can be considered little more than a hoax and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Someone can always recreate an article on the subject at a later date when or if reliable sourcing can be found. --DAJF (talk) 07:24, 27 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of references on Google Books. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But are any of them reliable?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article by all means! But improve it and give documentation. The Japanese article on it is short but reliable -- please see -- and it lists reputable scholarly sources and links. The existence of the sect is established historical knowledge in Japan, though it was persecuted severely in the medieval and Edo periods. There are some reliable summaries in English based on Japanese scholarship. Charles3399 (PhD, Japanese Studies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles3399 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 February 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/redirect to Ay-O. I'm pretty much going to move the entire article over, it may need to be trimmed and/or rewritten to fit well in its new home. Coverage of the internet meme should probably be added if sources can be found. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finger box[edit]

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

This was tagged as being a possible hoax, but a cursory check online suggests that it may be a legitimate thing after all (a Google test returned 31 million hits, including a Yahoo! Answers question). I think that this implies some notability, so I am opting for an afd rather than moving forward with the cds request. I have no opinion on the article's content, I'm just working to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete AND protect see [[49]]. It is a meme/hoax. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, that article from Know Your Meme specifically states that the origin of the current 4chan fingerbox meme was real fingerboxes created by Ay-O. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten since I made my original comment. Better now, but still lacks notability and is prime target for vandalism. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It states that it was "Updated Jan 08, 2011 at 01:59AM UTC by Don". The Internet Archive doesn't have this page stored, so I can't verify if there was an change made without the notification being applied. Possible vandalism isn't a valid deletion rationale. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the wikipedia article had been rewritten. You are right about vandalism not being a reason for deletion. Let me say it better: 1. I believe the article should be deleted because even the correct information does not meet notability. 2. If it is kept, the article should be protected due to the fact that the term "fingerbox" is primarily being used as a "lulzcow" currently. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or marge to List of Internet phenomena: even if the original Ay-O art can be proven as a hoax (which doesn't seem likely), the current meme based on it seems to have some notability. At the very least, it is worthy of a redirect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:47, 19 January 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) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly merge to Ay-O. The artwork is not a hoax: the Hannah Higgins book cited in the article can be read at Google Books [50] and there are other books about Fluxus that also discuss the Finger Boxes.[51]. This is legit content, although perhaps it would fit just as well at the artist's article. I don't see the evidence in reliable sources for the hoax/meme's notability, but perhaps I am missing something.--Arxiloxos (talk) 09:18, 26 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the article on the artist. Yes it we should cover it, but while it remains an idiosyncratic style, it does not need a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'merge to the BLP subject. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per the above merges.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 6 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock's Backpages[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:WEB. The sources at the bottom, though from irrefutably reliable sources, amount to:

A placement in a totally arbitrary "Top 25" list.
A broken link.
A short article on the site's 5th anniversary.
One-sentence mention amongst a list of several other websites.
A couple paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly but this is still in the context of several other websites, not about this site exclusively.
Incidental coverage from the Guardian that's mostly an interview with the creators.

A further search on Google News turned up no further sourcing than this. So in short, the site appears to fail all three criteria of WP:WEB, to wit:

The web coverage is limited almost entirely to "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", one-sentence mentions and/or material that is not independent (such as the aforementioned interview).
It has not won any sort of award. Getting on some criterion-free "top 25 music websites" lists ≠ notability.
It is not distributed or managed by a more notable website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate how you think this is sufficient? I just gave a rather elaborate rundown of how the coverage is not sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I disagree with you.--Michig (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Paste article and Andy Farquarson's Guardian article both give significant coverage and they're both clearly reliable sources, the others give added weight to claims of encyclopedic merit.--Michig (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC) A Library Journal article is partially visible via Google Books ([52]).--Michig (talk) 07:01, 20 January 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) 01:03, 26 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Six paragraphs in Entertainment Weekly is not "a couple". Quoting the subject of an article extensively in the course of eight paragraphs in The Guardian, dubbed "mostly an interview", is quite rightly not proscribed anywhere in WEB. Anarchangel (talk) 11:56, 8 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buster Doe[edit]

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

He isn't notable enough for his own page. Maybe it should be merged with the Phoenix Jones page to make one over the entire Rain City Superhero Movement. Kag427 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Jones gets enough coverage on his own to have an article for him. There can be an article for the Rain City Superhero Movement though, they getting coverage as a group, and members seen on a television interview together. Dream Focus 08:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't seen one single source or article solely over Buster Doe. He is simply mentioned along with Phoenix Jones. Kag427 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't vote delete, since that's automatically assumed since you nominated it. I was stating above that I'm against a merge with Phoenix Jones, since Phoenix Jones gets enough coverage on his own for his own article. Dream Focus 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Buster Doe has gotten absolutely NO coverage on his own. He is rarely referenced in the media, and in those rare occasions it is only as someone in addition to Phoenix Jones. Kag427 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 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) 01:02, 26 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about this person, might be fake--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable website. References are a link farm of content from the site. Step hen 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM is recognized and used by Metacritic as a notable site. Conversely, Wikipedia uses Metacritic to determine what reviews are "professional". Therefore it would seem to me, One Thirty BPM is clearly a notable site. The article also lists that it's on Metacritic. So how is there no indication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIN815 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability, the site is now a featured publication on Metacritic. Is that not significant enough? Doesn't that fill criteria #1 of web notability? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekaloudis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 24 January 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, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the Metacritic thing, which is pretty significant, the site also draws over 100,000 unique visitors a month and has been sourced by many prominent websites including Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, and NME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.213.242 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would seem to be enough to include One Thirty BPM on Wikipedia. Being listed on Metacritic is generally considered the watermark for what is a recognized and notable critical source, whether that be in print or on the internet. Deleting this wouldn't seem to be doing anything to help the website, nor the music community that relies on websites like this in this time when album sales and concert tickets sales continue to plummet. If the goal of Wikipedia is to make a comprehensive listing of what is notable in our culture, surely listing One Thirty BPM won't hurt that standing and will only help it, especially in the longterm, as the site is fast-growing and at the point to where it shouldn't be ignored. -Philip Cosores 1-26-11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.102.30 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Thirty BPM is a website that is recognised by many if not all of the independent record labels in the USA and UK. They respect and value their opinions and this is shown by the fact that the website receives promotional material from them for review puposes and for competitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.145.205 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 2 February 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. Actual "official" settlements, villages, etc may indeed be automatically notable, there is no evidence that this is anything other a private farm run by the Krishnas, so it does not fall into that category. As this is the third time this has been deleted I will be create-protecting it as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Govardhan Eco Village[edit]

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

Nice project but it's not even mentioned in RS. Gaura79 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. Wikid ^as© 12:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , why geographical locations are not notable? (User) Mb (Talk) 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss how this subject is notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is FP, it states that "Based on recent consensus demonstrated at numerous AfD discussions, every geographic location or entity that has a name and a verified location is suitable for inclusion as a topic of an article in Wikipedia." This is consensus that was not disputed even if not a guideline.[53] --(User) Mb (Talk) 11:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your reliable sources? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:26, 7 February 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. Although I note for the record that comments like "she is notable" without any further comment or evidence were not considered in making this determination. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. Despite that, the remainder of comments indicate a consensus to keep the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Devi Dasi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article went through two AfDs but no reliable independent sources where found. There's no coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. She's only mentioned in passing in intellectually independent reliable sources. Gaura79 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A notable person who is one of the key educators in ISKCON and probably the only prominent lady there with sources to back it up. Wikid ^as© 12:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you present independent, reliable sources that back up these claims of yours?Gaura79 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was a Keep in two prior AfDs - nominated by the same user. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 12:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a No concensus in two prior AfDs. The first time it was not nominated by me, only the second time. I still would like to see independent, reliable sources establishing notability.Gaura79 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is not true, the article was keep in the first AfD, keep/no consensus during the second one. Wikid ^as© 16:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. But still you'll have to present independent, reliable sources to support your claims that she's "one of the key educators in ISKCON and probably the only prominent lady". The sources you presented in previous AfD are ISKCON's sources and therefore are not independent.Gaura79 (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why independent sources IN ISKCON are not sufficient and those in the article already but here some other that clarify this point, let give you good faith at last:

"Learn to Read full serie - set A, B, C - Dr. Best (Urmila dd) - Children Books - Books". blservices.com. 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2011.

"About Dr Best Learn To Read | www.learntoreadenglish.co.uk". learntoreadenglish.co.uk. 2011. Retrieved February 9, 2011.

"Introducing Dr. Best's "Learn to Read with Krsna" « SivaramaSwami.com". sivaramaswami.com. 2011. Retrieved February 9, 2011.

"Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna... | The Chronicle". dukechronicle.com. 2011. Retrieved 9 February 2011.

None of the sources mentioned above can be used to establish notability. The second one, actually, is her own website, created to promote her English learning course or whatever. The last one is a college newspaper. It is not a good source to prove notability and it mentions her only in passing. There's barely any trivial coverage by secondary sources. Clearly, it is not sufficient to establish notability. She fails WP:GNG and article should be deleted. Gaura79 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable religious leader with citations to verify notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which citations are you talking about?Gaura79 (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is notable (User) Mb (Talk) 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Key woman figure within ISKCON. Bill william compton (talk) 16:36, 9 February 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 WP:BLP1E argument made in the nomination has been refuted, and all other delete comments were "per nom." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mausert[edit]

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

Not notable as a lawyer. There's no significant coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. The only coverage he gets is related to the "wearing pin in the court" accident. Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. There are a lot of autobiographies like these in Wikipedia that need to be cleaned up. THF (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable. (User) Mb (Talk) 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss how this subject is notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see a large number of good published sources (using above links) and he is a well known Vaishnava in the yoga circles as well. I think the nominator did not do WP:BEFORE or did not even consider applying ((notability)) or ((advert)) tags first which would have been sufficient to attract attention of other editors who can include numerous published sources to the story. --(User) Mb (Talk) 11:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there are no reliable sources, independent of the subject, that attribute notability to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- besides the numerous sources mentioned in the article, including NYT, other sources include.
"View International Cultic Studies Association's e-Library Member Resources". icsahome.com. 2011 [last update]. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
^{[author missing]} (2008) [last update]. "In the News:Hawaii Won't Prosecute Alleged Philippines Murderer". chakra.org. Retrieved February 8, 2011. ((cite web)): |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
"Still seeking justice after brother's '79 killing | ISKCON News". |work=news.iskcon.org |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011))
"The Sampradaya Sun - Independent Vaisnava News - News - August 2006". |work=harekrsna.com |year=2006 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011))
"Closure might come soon in 1979 slaying | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper". |work=the.honoluluadvertiser.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011))
"Kayak Right of Way? Dead Wrong Contends Attorney - Kayak Angler - The Kayak Fishing Magazine". |work=kayakanglermag.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011))
"View International Cultic Studies Association's e-Library Member Resources". |work=icsahome.com |year=2011 [last update] |accessdate=February 8, 2011))

Many of these are good or independent sources provide personal information so the ONEEVENT nominators claim is not correct, he is covered and there is not other rationale for deletion, thanks Wikid ^as© 17:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that attribute notability to the subject? What is he notable for, and how does he meet WP:BIO? While the person does exist, I do not feel that he meets the requirements for notability. Though this is NOT a Strong delete scenerio; I still feel that the article is more of an advertisement. I am open to changing my opinion, but as it stands, I do not see the evidence required to maintain the article for a BLP. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requirement of WP:BIO needs to be met if the general notability requirements are not met and there is no consensus on inclusion based on those. You were wrong in assuming that nominator suggested that subject is not covered by reliable sources. He claimed that he is notable/ covered only for one event (which is the flag incident references). However there are a number of other sources of other events (eg his Hare Krsna brother who was killed and he is searching for his killer, for being Hare Krishna candidate to the post of Family Court Judge, for teaching yoga and vegeterianism and more which makes him notable), so the coverage he gets is in other topical sources, and it is significant, not only about 'one event' (pin) it certainly is "significant coverage in idependent reliable sources". Thus 'general notability' requirements are satisfied (not WP:BIO which are over and above that). I do agree that article needs to be rewritten to read less of a resume style, at least it should be shorten and made into a less of an ad, ideally not an advert all together, if neutral sources are given priority. Wikid ^as© 02:46, 9 February 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) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hridaya Caitanya Dasa[edit]

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

There's no significant coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. Gaura79 (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- reliable sources confirm notability, the person is the Chair of Governing Body Commission for the year 2011-2012, so keep is justified. Wikid ^as© 12:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikidas. Hridaya Caitanya Dasa hold a very prominent position within the ISKCON GBC. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 12:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shruti14 and Wikidas. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per nom, notable identity. Bill william compton (talk) 16:39, 9 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olesi[edit]

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

A constructed language with no indication of notability that appears to have been made up one day. Proposed deletion contested by author. Opus 113 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources, zero ghits (besides this article), zero indication of notability. Zetawoof (ζ) 08:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And near zero content. (One expects a conlang article to say something about its phonemes / lexicon / syntax!) I note in passing that the language's creator is Selçuk Mert Köseoğlu and the article's sole author is Mert1295. —Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 4 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grafton Recruitment[edit]

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

I removed the PROD because the prodder didn't use an edit summary. The original prod rationale was not notable and this is a company. I'm getting some Gnews hits but many are in Polish so I think this needs to be discussed before it gets deleted anyway. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Google News shows a number of hits, but the first several pages I was able to reach seemed to all be routine announcements of acquisitions/hirings/departures, press releases, and stories about job markets generally in which firm representatives were quoted as sources. No indication that this firm has ever invented anything significant, become any kind of cultural icon, or had any significant effect in history of the kind that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 2 February 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. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

InvisionFree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Zathyus Networks. One of the most popular forum software suites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:06, 21 January 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) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 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, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Merge per Jamie. It is almost impossible to verify the notability of this software as Google turns up millions of hits, so finding reliable sources on this would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, in effect. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep does seem to have had some impact. Numerous third party site offering skins and how to guides indicate some degree of notability. --Salix (talk): 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zathyus Networks. I don't see any content that can be merged, but it's a possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 14:37, 3 February 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. Main claim to notability appears to be a false claim. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Terwilliger[edit]

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

May or may not not meet WP:N. Obviously requires cleanup, but that has nothing to do with the deletion itself. Levinge (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was initially going to "vote" "Keep" on the grounds that he was a Mr. America, but rather strangely, although this is stated in the lead and on his personal website, it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, nor is he listed on either of the Mr. America pages. The article's creator should be given time to add citations, otherwise the article will be deleted under the BLP PROD rules. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Many championships, certainly notable. I added a few references also. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 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, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major problems per WP:RS - take a close look at the article's references - plus failings in WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Keep~~ Many championships, certainly notable. I added a few references also. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby, you cannot !vote twice. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:16, 1 February 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, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough as Mr. America and earned a pro card as a bodybuilder. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The failure to confirm the most notable listed achievement, Mr. America, casts doubt on the entire article. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 February 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 British Psychological Society. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness and Experiential Psychology[edit]

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

Delete or merge with British Psychological Society as "Consiousness and Experimental Psychology" consists mainly of content identifying it as a branch of the BPS, and would be better suited listed in the main article. Levinge (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 January 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, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See no apparent reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 26 January 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, NW (Talk) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as a section of an organization without separate notability . It holds one conference a year, and worldCat shows no library but the British Library has a copy of its proceedings; it also publishes what it claims is a journal Consciousness and Experiential Psychology--but it has only 2 issues a year & is not even in Ulrich's, and Worldcat shows holdings only in the 3 English copyright libraries. Our general practice is to require much more than this for a section of a notable organisation. The section's own web page talks more about why the subject of consciousness is important, than why the section is. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems more appropriate than deletion. Tim! (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. gscholar hits but as nominator says part of British Psychological Society. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 7 February 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 speedy deleted as G4 by TomStar81 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sri Devananda Gaudiya Matha (2nd nomination)

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

Re-post of a deleted article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math Also, the references cited do NOT refer to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - changing a letter from Math to Matha is plain disruptive and article is recreated within days of the deletion. Wikid ^as© 07:41, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbous Cell Media Group[edit]

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

Non-notable media group lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — cannot find sufficient reliable sources for verification. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Feezo (Talk) 04:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 hit in gnews. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and failing WP:GNG, WP:CORP, WP:N, and WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd hoped to save this, just because I love the phrase "bulbous cell", but there's nowhere near the sourcing that would be required to establish notability under WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. (I was not able to determine (if there is one) a Japanese form of the company name, but I'm not certain that there is one aside from the Romanized form, if there is, then my attempts to search were not made in view of that.). --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 07:59, 4 February 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. m.o.p 09:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This looks more like a template than an article. It hasn't been edited since 2009, so it appears to be woefully out of date. Perhaps an article could be written about the Great Britian rugby league Tri-Nations squad, but this is one of those cases where a redlink should be preferred to misleading information. –Grondemar 04:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't even clear which tri-nations tournament this relates to; probably the last one in 2006? Mattlore (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Template:Great Britain Tri Nations Squad. BUC (talk) 12:46, 7 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water Tribe[edit]

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

A completely in-universe description of a fictional nation in a television series. This article was actually merged into Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender a long time ago, which was then merged into the main Avatar: The Last Airbender article. It wasn't notable then, and isn't notable now. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So where should information (appropriately trimmed) be kept? I can agree that this long of a treatment of the fictional element is excessive, but not that it should be obliterated from the encyclopedia. It sounds like it was previously merged into oblivion, so where's the right balance between "nothing" and "too much"? Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any information that is significant enough to be kept, it should be placed in the main article. These articles existed previously, and were merged into a giant Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender, where it became apparent that we were just trying to preserve a repository of unnecessary plot detail. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both articles are a plot-only description of a fictional work and lack references independent of the subject from third-party sources. The topics themselves do not meet the general notability guideline, being unneeded content forks of the articles Avatar: The Last Airbender and List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters. Also, the articles are written with an in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective. Jfgslo (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've verified (via edit summaries, not diffs) that both Water Tribe and Air Nomads were merged into Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender near its creation. I did not find where the Universe article was merged to the main article or to anywhere else. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both topics fail to meet Wikipedia:Notability. They have no sections with reception, parodies, impact in popular culture, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:44, 8 February 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. There is a lot of irrelevant material and repeated argument in this AFD, making it appear to have much more substance than it actually has. No one party is solely responsible for this, but I would ask everyone who made numerous very long posts here to consider the wisdom of doing so in future debates. Now to the meat of the issue: As we all know this is not a vote, but even if it were there is no clear numerical winner, although a slim majority favor deletion. That leaves us with strength of argument. On the "keep" side we have the argument that there are sources that use this term, but as the "delete" proponents point out, the way it is used is inconsistent, and most Argentines apparently do not self-identify as "white" even if they might "feel white" (whatever that is supposed to mean) and this term is not used by other Argentines to refer these persons. There may be some academics who use the term in their studies of race and ethnicity but on the whole it does not seem to be a term with much use in the day-to-day "real" world. It seems there is a real and valid concern that this article consists of a synthesis of information that is not clearly supported by the sources. As the individual subgroups of more well-defined ethnicities already have their own articles there is no sensible target for merging this information or simply redirecting the article. Therefore both consensus and policy would seem to favor deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Argentine[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

No evidence that "White Argentines" are a distinct group receiving significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Article appears to replicate information in the existing articles white, white people and Argentina and represents an invalid content fork from those articles. (a) This is my first AfD nomination via Twinkle, apologies if it goes wrong, and (b) I am making this nomination following discussion on the article's talk page which may be of interest to commentors, in order to get a wider opinion on the matter. DustFormsWords (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is worth noting that this article has been a long-standing subject of often-heared debate, with a great deal of contentious edit-warring and less-than-friendly comments from some participants. This has somewhat distracted editors from the central question: is 'White Argentine' an ethnicity? Nobody is disputing that the population of Argentia is predomenantly descended from European ancestry, and nor are they suggesting that there aren't sources referring to 'white Argentines'. That, however, is not the issue. Ethnicity isn't about genetics, and nor is it about abstract geographical concepts (like 'Europe'). And neither is it about abstract 'racial' concepts (like 'whiteness'). Ethnicity is about how people define themselves. This point has been made time and time again, but all that results is a stream of sources (often dubious, sometimes repeated even after the dubiousness is pointed out) that refer to abstract 'white Argentines' - usually in non-Argentine publications. We are told on the talk page that the term 'white Argentine' isn't used because of 'political correctness', which could possibly be true, but again, it is unsourced. It has become increasingly apparent that at least one pro-White-Argentine-as-an-ethnicity contributor is basing his entire concept of 'whiteness' around a pseudoscientific 'racial' categorisation that utterly ignores the overwhelmoing evidence which shows (in the article itself) that the population Argentina is ethnically diverse, with many (perhaps most, other than those descended from recent European Migrants) having mixed ancestry - descended from a mix of predominantly European migrants with indigenous peoples, and with a further contribution from sub-Saharan Africa. That this supposed 'ethnicity' is a synthesis is further made evident by attempts to include those of Middle-Eastern descent (like President Carlos Menem), while giving no explanation whatsoever why those of say sub-Saharan African descent aren't included in a 'migrant' ethnicity. We are treated to discussions of 'Caucasian phenotypes' without any explanation of their relevance (and without any sources either: nothing new there), and to explanations of how 'Rioplatense Spanish' somehow defines 'white Argentines', though other Argentines seem to have no trouble speaking it. The whole thing is a mess, based on a false premiss. The people of Argentina (all of them) deserve better... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends:

This is being pushed by two users who, incredibly, assert that white Argentines do not exist. When pressed, they'll change their argument to say that "the supposed group does not acknowlege themselves as such." I won't dignify the first argument with a response, and the second has been anwered at length by a fellow editor, Pablozeta, who added numerous sources to that effect here (beyond those already in the article). Most white Argentines, indeed, will not refer to themselves as "white" out of both common courtesy and custom, since (as most of these sources state), they typically prefer "European" or "of European descent." Accordingly, I would support having the page moved to "European Argentine" (if the problem is indeed one of semantics, which I doubt since those pushing for deletion won't hear of it).

I should also note that they focus their attacks on the page on white Argentines, when a casual look at most other pages about white communities elsewhere will show that this is among the best referenced and thorough such pages. A volume of sources have been added to those already there, when it is those trying to kill the article who should have been coughing up sources asserting that white (or European) Argentines do not exist!

Let's be clear: I understand the subject of white people may be offensive to some; but Andy's pleas of "political correctness" (to say nothing of his patronizing asides such as "the people of Argentina deserve better") are Orwellian in their denial of patent fact, and I'll only agree to have this article deleted the day all other such articles are. We'd be looking at an incredible double standard, otherwise - and Argentines (and everyone else potentially affected by Andy's PC-for-thee-but-not-for-me attitude) deserve better.

Keep this article, then, until these issues can be reasonably addressed for all similar ones.

Thanks, Sherlock4000 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're aware, Sherlock4000, how bad that argument is. Applied in general, it would allow nothing on Wikipedia to ever change, pending changes elsewhere. The Wikipedia philosophy is incremental improvement through small local changes, not stasis while awaiting perfect policy. Either this article meets our content policies currently, or it doesn't. (I say it doesn't.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, it isn't me that keeps referring to 'political correctness' but Pablozeta. All I've done in regard to that particular concept is to (a) point out that you can't use it as an excuse for not being able to provide evidence, and (b) object to pseudoscientific 'racial' stereotypes, which may be 'politically incorrect', but also happen to be 'factually incorrect' with regards to the Argentinian population - as the article itself shows. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys: Thank you for your response. Your spin on what I said could be debated, except that we're not discussing "improving" the article "through small local changes," are we?

No, of course not. You both are advocating deleting an article wholesale (hence, the title of this thread, right?).

I would, however, like to know why you've chosen to delete the page on white Argentines, when there are so many. This article contains no unsourced assertions, and is in no way dismissive of anyone else. Whether you believe it does or not is no excuse to misrepresent the page, or to push for its deletion without basis or consensus.

In all likelihood, all articles about any ethnic, cultural or religious group are or have been the subject of some argument as to how biased they may or may not be. This article in no way contradicts the existence of white or European Argentines, as Andy would have others believe, and is rich in evidence. I'd venture to say, moreover, that few are as well-sourced or thorough. If Wikipedia abided by Andy's very subjective yardstick that an article is meaningless because he says it is (all evidence and sources be damned), no page on any group of people on God's green earth could ever be written, could it?

I'm sorry you feel this way. It's certainly not mutual.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've debated any number of ethnicity articles and lists, both in the Keep and Delete camps. I'm not working from any master plan; I assess articles as I see them and I make a call based on the merits of the article. There's nothing inherently wrong with ethnicity/nationality intersections (clearly White South Africans would be a topic capable of supporting an article) - it's just that this particular one is bollocks. In the spirit of cooperation I'd appreciate if you could avoid making ad hominem aspersions and concentrate on the merits or otherwise of this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly White South Africans would be a topic capable of supporting an article Actually, that's highly debatable and that article should be reviewed as well (along with White Africans of European ancestry). A White South African would work best as a disambig page for actual, documented ethnic groups like ~~Afrikaans~~ Afrikaner. "White South African" is a wording used almost exclusively to separate people of European descent from indigenous South African peoples, and not as a distinct and uniform "peoples". The term may merit an article but there seems to be little evidence that the term also describes an ethnic group. (as is suggested now) Bulldog123 05:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's a good point and ~~Afrikaans~~ Afrikaner is really what I was thinking of, thanks. Though probably not terribly relevant to this discussion. - 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"This article contains no unsourced assertions". Well, considering the number of times Sherlock4000 has reinserted an 'infobox' containing an entirely unsourced montage of supposed 'white Argentinians'. I'd say that was at least questionable. I'd recommend anyone interested in the subject of 'unsourced assertions' to look back into the article history, when it seemed at times to consist of little else. In any case, there is only one 'assertion' that really needs sourcing here: that a significant proportion of those that the article insists are 'white Argentinians' actually self-identify themselves as such when asked to define their ethnicity. We have precisely one source on the subject that, when even limited to the narrowest of categories, shows that only 63% of the population of Argentina "feel white" - not an assertion of ethnicity, but a 'feeling' when given a narrow choice of alternatives.[54] A feeling is of course not an ethnicity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my concern here is not that the article is unverifiable, but rather than it is non-notable, in that none of the sources directly address the term "White Argentine" or describe a definable group of "White Argentines" as having traits or history which are distinct from whites generally, Argentines generally or (say) Spaniards and Portuguese generally. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stronge Delete There might be Italian Argentine, Polish Argentines, French Argentine, Spanish Argentine, German Argentines, etc... but "White Argentine" seems to be a Wikipedia-user-synthesized people and not a people with a distinct cultural, linguistic, or ancestral uniformity (the definition of an "ethnic group"). On a related note, a very similar argument can be given for the "unethnicgroupification." of Multiracial Americans, White Americans, and British Jews, and I would support a review of all those. I mention this to avoid WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. Bulldog123 05:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Or, to put it in the simplest possible terms, ethnicity isn't an attribute, it is an attitude. In the case of Argentina, I've seen no evidence that 'whiteness' is anything other than the attitude of a narrow minority, possibly with a political agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that minority self-identified as White Argentines then there might be an article in that; the problem is not whether such a minority exists but really that it's not directly addressed through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. The only self-identified 'White Argentines' I have any direct knowledge of are those that have edited the article. There may well be more (in fact I'd be surprised if there weren't), but that doesn't alter the fact that most of the people these 'White Argentines' are claiming also to be 'White Argentines' don't seem to hold the same opinion. Or if they do, no reliable source has yet been provided to show it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these editors are stating their assumptions (Argentines think this or that about themselves), their personal beliefs (ethnicity is an attitude), and willful misrepresentations (no sources were provided), as fact.

They are, furthermore, doing so with a visibly escalating hostility (the narrow group, a minority with an agenda). All this, when, again, this is the only such page being put up on the chopping block when it is, in fact, among the best referenced.

The article has no "agenda" to push, and merely seeks to explain the existence of Argentines of European descent to whomever might like to know (just like any other such article). Your casting aspersions to that effect on those who wrote it and would like to see it around violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Wikipedia's policies.

Those who would delete this article have nothing to support their need to see this article ditched, other than their own contentions. Be they 63%, 86%, or anywhere in between, the existence of white Argentines has never been debated, and, in fact, is routinely mentioned in reference works, travel and geography magazines, and other media as a defining feature of Argentine society and culture. I'd support its deletion when articles on all such peoples are deleted, as I said earlier, and in the meantime: To anyone with good-faith interest in the subject, this is a well-sourced and informative page, and recaps the experiences of all those communities Bulldog123 mentioned with history, context, as well as opposing viewpoints.

Thanks again, Sherlock4000 (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & move to European Argentine. I have lived in Argentina for several years on and off and have come across countless people that self identify as European Argentines, many of them have immense knowledge of & pride in their European ancestry. I believe that the majority of this article could easily be reconfigured into an article entitled European Argentine which is a subject that is certainly worthy of an article. It seems that it is the use of the word "White" that is considered a problem here rather than the content (which seems generally pretty good and well sourced from my reading). Attention should also fall on these articles: White Brazilian, White Canadian, White American, White Latin American, White Hispanic & White Mexican. King of the North East 09:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that we already have an Immigration to Argentina article, a Demographics of Argentina article, and individual articles on almost every European migrant group to Argentina (24 in total: White_Argentine#See_also). As for other articles, they are irrelevant, this is an AfD for this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article cites itself: [55] (This is a fake book written by a Wikipedia scraper) I don't believe the citations hold up when the self-citation is removed. The other principal citations are a Christian missionary group and something called worldstatesmen.org, neither of which approach anything like reliability. Shii (tock) 13:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank King of the North East (who has lived in Argentina and knows the people well), for joining me in calling for the article's move to "European Argentine," since the word "white" is being used as as straw man by those pushing for the article's deletion. You know, when this business of having the infobox erased started, I said then that the true goal of those doing it was to have the article eliminated wholesale. And here we are. Since one of the pretexts being used is that the page "pushes an agenda," I am sure that all this time is being wasted to - precisely - push an agenda. This is a safe guess because, among other reasons, the ring leader, Andy, cries foul at the supposed lack of sources for the article and for the people given as famous examples of white Argentines, while insisting that the background of others be taken on faith (I agree with Andy's stance in the latter case, but I think it's a damn slight easier to prove someone is a white Argentinian than it is to prove someone is Jewish without sourcing it). Shii is right: the source mentioned (one of over 50) is inadequate, and though it does not contradict volumes of other citations supporting the obvious existence of white (or European) Argentines, I'll replace it for a more respected source. I've notice none of these people who've taken so much umbrage with this article are bringing up the pages about all the other white latin americans. You'll find that they are just as sure and proud of their backgound as white Argentines. Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock4000, do you actually think that when I wrote "...for the purposes of Wikipedia, everybody is Jewish unless proven otherwise". I was expecting to be taken seriously? Do you not understand irony? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, it is unnecessary, all information contained in this article, exist in other ones, for instance: Argentine people, Immigration to Argentina, Ethnography of Argentina and Demographics of Argentina. Second, is original research to determine unilaterally the existence of an ethnic group not recognized by any publication, statement or valid source. --GiovBag (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest delete too: White Mexican, White Colombian, White Venezuelan and Peruvian of European descent, for the same reasons. However, in Brazil "white" officially exists as demographic category to classify the population, in consequence the article White Brazilian it must be keep, but could be reviewed and neutralized.--GiovBag (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thank Sherlock4000 and King of te North for their contributions. Here I provide AGAIN links to fore-sights and citations to prove that "argentino blanco" (white argentine) is a term used to name an ethnic group; it appears in several books or publications in both Spanish and English language, and they speak of all the Argentines of predominantly European descent. The phrase in not used now in Argentine websites in Spanish for reasons of "political correctness". In the last years there has been a movement pro-indigenist in Argentina that has caused the phrase argentinos blancos to be considered racist, and that's why it is avoided by many and replaced by argentinos descendientes de europeos or other equivalents.

In Simon Schwartzmann's study Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, 63% of Argentinian people interview declared themselves as argentinos blancos. I'm also in the process of buying a copy of Sociología Argentina, a book written by José Ingenieros who explained the process of formation and supported the existence of such ethnic group.

Argentina: Land of the Vanishing Blacks. by Era Bell Thompson. Ebony Magazine. October 1973.</ref>

Los wichí en las fronteras de la civilización: capitalismo, violencia y shamanismo en el Chaco Argentino. Una aproximación etnográfica. written by Javier Rodríguez Mir. Página 24. Editorial Abya Yala. “Brasil se transformó en un país marcadamente blanco, mestizo y negro, mientras que Argentina se volvió un país eminentemente blanco. ... Las diferencias en el modo de representar la pertenencia al Estado-nación, impulsados por sus respectivas elites, está claramente presente en las distintas imágenes homogeneizadoras que cada identidad nacional proyecta; en Brasil se realizó a través de la imagen de una democracia racial, formada por blancos negros e indios, mientras en Argentina se ha realizado bajo la imagen del "crisol de las razas", formada por la composición de muchos argentinos blancos europeos. ...”

Argentina en marcha, Volumen 1. Comisión Nacional de Cooperación Intelectual. 1947. “Para 1826 se admiten 630.000 almas, así repartidas, según Ingenieros: Blancos extranjeros 5.000, Blancos argentinos 8.000, Indios 132.000, Mestizos 400.000, Negros…”

Folclore en las grandes ciudades: arte popular, identidad y cultura. written by Alicia Martín. Páginas 77 y 80.

Our Good Neighbor Hurdle. By John W. White. Page 168.

Crisis and hope in Latin America: an evangelical perspective. Chapter “The Races of Latin America”, page 23. Written by Emilio Antonio Núñez C.,William David Taylor. William Carey Library. 1996. “The population of Argentina, for example, is 90 percent European in origin, whereas that of Paraguay, is Guarani Indian in about the same proportion… Here are white Argentines and black Venezuelans who speak the language of Castile;… ”

Embodying Argentina: body, space and nation in 19th century narrative. Escrito por Nancy Hanway. Chapter 5, The Injured Body. Page 170.

Revista de Filosofía. Vol. 14 , Parte 2. 1921. “Y aquí conviene observar que "argentino blanco" no designa una aproximación, sino que quiere decir lo que expresa literalmente, "argentinos blancos" puros, sin mezcla, de ascendencia directamente europea. Sin la "color-line",…”

Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana. Nº 63-65. 1952. “... se levantó una Argentina sin indios y sin gauchos, con argentinos blancos, nacidos de inmigrantes europeos,…”

“los argentinos blancos que sentimos la necesidad de llamarnos hispano-argentinos para que no se nos confunda con cualquier otro producto de mestizaje blanco, los que somos auténticamente argentinos por los cuatro costados,” El Antisemitismo en la Argentina. Leonardo Senkman. 1989.

Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana. RILI: volumen 5, Nº 9-10. Escrito por Klaus Zimmerman y Armin Schwegler. 2007.

“…. Hasta ahora hemos analizado cómo los hablantes han construido un límite entre argentinos 'blancos' e inmigrantes ... cómo una argentina con antepasados indígenas construye los argentinos como un grupo exclusivamente blanco. ...”

Furthermore, here there are several international sources and studies that assess the percentage of "Whites/Europeans" in Argentina in at least 85% of the total population. The information is cited under the label "ETHNIC GROUPS", and they speak of "White/European" or "Criollo" Argentines, not of smaller ethncities or colectividades separately, such as Italo-argentines, Spanish-Argentines, etc. The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina, World Statesmen.org: Argentina Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups., Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI, Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook..--Pablozeta (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can I remind Pablozeta that this is not the place to endlessly regurgitate the same sources, particularly without first submitting them for proper review as reliable sources first. (or in some cases, after it has already been pointed out that they are not reliable sources). Furthermore this statement "in Simon Schwartzmann's study Etnia, condiciones de vida y discriminación, 63% of Argentinian people interview declared themselves as argentinos blancos" is false. 63% of those polled, when given a narrow choice (white, black, indigenous, or various combinations thereof) stated that they 'felt white'. They were never asked if they 'declared themselves as 'Argentinos blancos' at all. It is this willful over-interpretation of the evidence that lies at the heart of the problems with this article. Data is being gathered from multiple sources (often dubious) to reach a conclusion stated in none of them: that a significant proportion of the Argentine population consider themselves as a part of an ethnic group 'Argentinos blancos'. It is worth noting too that Pablozeta has chosen to use criteria for 'inclusion' drawn from no source whatever to include those of Middle Eastern descent, thereby ruling out the proposal made by some to rename the article 'European Argentines' or similar - We cannot redefine an ethnicity ourselves, and either it includes Middle-Easterners or it doesn't (if of course, it exists at all). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I toyed with AFDing this article way back when first coming across it. The bottom line is that it is not possible to properly source this as an ethnic group and it mostly just synthesis information. The content is brought together from three other articles. Thist article is basically information on migration into Argentina with a note about use of the term "White Argentine" tacked onto the front. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per - unrecognised ethnic group that is weakly supported in reliable externals. Much of any content worthy of keeping is already in other articles, such as Immigration to Argentina, Ethnography of Argentina etc, etc. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% concur with User:GiovBag. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh no. You cannot delete the article when people have presented sources that validate the article.Secret killer (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
It's acknowledged by both sides here that there are reliable sources that speak of White Argentines.
Since reliable sources consider this group to number tens of millions of people and to compose a majority of the Argentine people, the group is clearly notable.
Specific mention of "argentinos blancos" (lit. "White Argentines") is made by multiple sources here: [56]. Mention of "Argentina's white population" is made in this book. I'm also able to cite this: "A similar analysis was applied when comparing the 3 selected ethnic groups: Argentine white, Argentine mestizo, and Mexican mestizo."[57] In his study of Latin America's ethnic composition, Ernesto Lizcano Fernandez writes: "La polémica sobre la composición étnica en Argentina gira en torno a la importancia concedida a los indígenas, por un lado, y a los blancos y mes ti zos, por otro. La CIA, EFE y Coy coinciden en que la población blanca alcanza el 97, e incluso el 98%, de la población". Translation: "The controversy over Argentina's ethnic composition revolves round the importance conceded to the indigenes, on one side, and to whites and Mestizos, on the other. The CIA, EFE and Coy coincide in that the white population reaches 97%, and even 98%, of the population".([58]) Clearly this scholar has referred to a white Argentine ethnicity, just as he has referred — perhaps uncontroversially? — to an indigenous and to a Mestizo one.

Lastly, is it too much to ask that WP:CIVIL be observed in this debate? What need is there of comments such as [59]? SamEV (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - this user is responding to a canvassing request for support from User:Pablozeta Off2riorob (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly was canvassed by him: twice. And this was my reply to him after his first effort, and it is my reply to you: [60]. Good day. SamEV (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer your response to the second canvassing - " I see that you've been told about this concern. Be careful." Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're being sincere or not, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. In full, I wrote: "I thought you saw my last edit summary; anyway, I see that you've been told about this concern. Be careful." I.e. after his second attempt, I realized that he didn't read my edit summary, so I visited his talk page to inform him about canvassing, but I saw that he'd been told about it, and that there was even an ANI thread about his actions. I said (trying to be kind; I really felt like being much more blunt) "Be careful" as in "ten cuidado", 'take care not to do that anymore and get yourself blocked'. (If you'd like to discuss this further, I suggest we do so elsewhere, so as not to distract from the real issue here.) SamEV (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SamEV. Nobody is disputing that the majority of the Argentine population might possibly be considered 'white'. Indeed, the survey cited in Schwartzmann's article (the best source we seem to have) states that 63% of the Argentine population 'feel white'. This is not what the article is claiming: that 'white Argentine' is an ethnicity. To support this, we would need evidence that these Argentines describe themselves as 'Argentinos blancos' - this has not been provided. As Pablozeta himself stated some time ago, when Argentines are asked about their ethnicity they tend to be more specific:

About BLP, and since this term is not common in Spanish language sources, it is probable that all the living people I mention in the article -if asked about their ethnicity- will not answer "White Argentine", but "Argentine of European/Spanish/Italian/German/Arab/Armenian descent", because the exact term argentino blanco is not commonly used in Argentina. But this is also explained in the section Usage of the term, so we are going round in circles over and over again. [61]

It is clear from this that Pablozeta himself is saying that the Argentines he is classifying as 'white Argentines' do not do so - the 'white Argentine' ethnicity is a synthesis consisting of the intersection of two different categories: those who see themselves as 'white' (which is not of course restricted to Argentines), and those who are of Argentine nationality (who need not see themselves as 'white'). There is no evidence provided that a significant proportion of the Argentine population see a 'white Argentine' ethnicity as being a meaningful concept, with a distinct culture, language/dialect, style of dress, religion or whatever that would normally be seen as marking membership of that group. Ethnicity is a social construct, not an objective 'fact', and for an ethnicity to exist, the supposed members must recognise themselves as members of an ethnicity they themselves consider meaningful. I have asked for evidence of this, but none has been forthcoming. Instead we are offered the excuse that it isn't 'politically correct' to use such terms. This could possibly be true, but since this seems to be an non-falsifiable proposition, it cannot be used as a basis for argument.

As for your remarks about civility, if we were to go further into this, I'm sure I can find much worse from the pro-article camp: indeed, there have been traces of it in this AfD discussion already. In any case, if Pablozeta wishes to come out with pseudoscientific arguments base on little more than defunct 'racist' science, and on his own subjective opinions, I reserve the right to describe them in appropriate terms. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no evidence provided that a significant proportion of the Argentine population see a 'white Argentine' ethnicity"

Does it matter that reliable sources do? SamEV (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources cited in the article say this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lizcano, at least. I quoted him in my first comment here, q.v., but I'll requote him here if you'd like. SamEV (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Lizcano article is in Spanish, I'll leave this to others to debate, except to point out that the article has an abstract in English:

Abstract: This article is based on the characterization, quantification and geografical distribution of the six ethnic groups in those that the Ibero-American population is divided: Latin or Iberian, Indigenous, Black, Creole, Garífuna and Asian. From this, it is possible to distinguish four types of countries in Iberoamérica (Indo-European, afrocriollo, afromestizo and criollo) and the Ibero-American cultural area is confronted with the other cultural areas of the American continent (English and French spoken North America and English and French spoken Caribbean).

There is no mention of a 'white Argentine' ethnicity as such. Indeed, once again, we are given an article not specifically on the subject of ethnicity in Argentina at all, but on a much broader topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a requote: "La polémica sobre la composición étnica en Argentina gira en torno a la importancia concedida a los indígenas, por un lado, y a los blancos y mes ti zos, por otro. La CIA, EFE y Coy coinciden en que la población blanca alcanza el 97, e incluso el 98%, de la población". Translation: "The controversy over Argentina's ethnic composition revolves round the importance conceded to the indigenes, on one side, and to whites and Mestizos, on the other. The CIA, EFE and Coy coincide in that the white population reaches 97%, and even 98%, of the population".([62]) The translation is mine. If you dispute it, please check with a third party. SamEV (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the gross disparity between the figures you cite, and those in the Schwartzmann article, one would have to ask how they could possibly be reconciled. In any case, if "whites and Mestizos" (i.e. Mestizos = those of mixed ancestry) comprise "one side" then the article seems to suggests that the 'whites' don't consider themselves as separate from 'Mestizos'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, what he does state, not suggest, in that document, is that about 85% is white, that some sources treat the Mestizos as white, and that as result the white total is augemented to 97% or 98% in such sources. SamEV (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, without knowing how the figure was arrived at, one can't really say much about its validity - the Schwartzmann figures seem to be from a recent survey, so one would think they were more likely to be valid (and in any case, saying that X% of the Argentine population 'is white' isn't the same thing as saying they consider to be ethnically 'white Argentine', so we aren't comparing the same figures). The point is though, that if some sources say one thing, while others say something else, it is absolutely clear that ethnicity in Argentina is (as is normal in most contexts) complex, fluid, and contested, and that simple statements about the composition and/or size (and sometimes, even the existence) of a group are more or less meaningless. I'm sure a good article could be written on the complexities of ethnicity in Argentina, but this one isn't it. The article starts off with the assumption that there is a specific ethnicity, with clear criteria for membership. and then goes on to make assertions about it not borne out by the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: it's Levinson (whom the article also cites) who states explicitly that some sources combine the two groups.[63] As for Lizcano, note that on the table on page 34 (page 218 of the original) he gives a figure of 85% for Whites, and 11% for Mestizos. He's only reporting that other sources speak of 97% and 98% white.

If ethnicity in Argentina is "complex, fluid, and contested", that should be in the article. If there are multiple points of view then there are multiple points of view and a remedy called WP:NPOV. There's no reason why the article can't cite figures from multiple sources (since when is that a problem?), as mandated by Wikipedia policy, and that there's even dispute among scholars (*not* among Wikipedians; our own opinions are not reliable sources) over whether there's such a thing as a White Argentine ethnicity. You've already seen sources that claim there is. SamEV (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC); 23:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I then suggest you start work on an article on Ethnic complexity in Argentina, or some other neutrally-titled topic, and base it on all relevant sources, rather than those that (supposedly) support a preconceived definition of a specific ethnic group? If ethnicity is contested, you cannot make statements about whether person X is of a particular 'ethnicity', as the article we are currently debating seeks to do, unless you have verifiable evidence that the person in question has self-identified as such. Indeed, you shouldn't necessarily take a single self-identification as necessarily being valid in all situations - ethnicity itself is often contextual, and 'who you are' may depend on 'why you are being asked'. The article under consideration makes all sorts of unjustified assumptions, not just about 'white Argentines', but about ethnicity in general. It just isn't valid as an entry in a 21st-century encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone else can take you up on your suggested article.

Regardless of whether any individuals are mentioned and depicted, the group, as a group, is a legitimate topic, for which there are reliable sources that provide facts and figures. The inclusion of individuals should be done according to sources and may even be a matter or removing the images until that's done, rather than deleting the article. SamEV (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC); 01:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "reliable sources that provide facts and figures" beyond the raw and greatly-differing figures for the proportion of the Argentinian population that may consider themselves part of a contested ethnicity. Why would an article discussing a contested topic in neutral terms presume otherwise? The article as it stands goes into great detail about European migration to Argentina (detail which can already be found in other articles), on the basis that this somehow confirms the existence of a 'white Argentinian' ethnicity, rather than actually demonstrating that it does. It does much the same thing with a section on genetics - one that actually largely disproves the argument it purports to demonstrate, once one sees through the wilfully-overinterpreted spin. The only legitimate topic for an article based on the sources presented is one that indicates that ethnicity in Argentina is too complex an issue to be making assertions about " the group, as a group" beyond the statement that, as a social construct, its significance is contested, and its 'membership' undefined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no "reliable sources that provide facts and figures" beyond the raw and greatly-differing figures for the proportion of the Argentinian population that may consider themselves part of a contested ethnicity."

Suppose *your opinion* that those are "raw" figures is true. The relevant thing is that they're raw figures that are provided by reliable sources.
"greatly-differing figures". I refer you to WP:NPOV. The fact that sources differ about a topic is not fatal, and is not supposed to be.
Whatever their genetics, whatever differing scholarly opinions there may be (it would be nice, btw, if you backed up your claim that no white Argentine ethnicity exists, by citing the reliable sources that make that claim...) the fact remains that millions of Argentines classify themselves or are classified by reliable sources as white. That's the most relevant fact. SamEV (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources we have been presented with show two things: (A) That outside sources classify X%, Y% or Z% of Argentines as white, and (B) In a single survey (results cited in Schwartzmann) 63% of a sample of Argentines stated, when asked whether they felt 'white', 'black', 'indigenous', or one of several combinations answered that they 'felt white'. They were not asked if they considered themselves to be ethnically 'white Argentinian', or indeed whether 'white Argentinian' was an ethnic group at all. We are repeatedly going over the same ground here, because you fail to grasp the fundamental point: that an 'ethnicity' can only be demonstrated to exist if it can be shown that the supposed 'members' actually believe it does. And it isn't down to me to prove the non-existence of the subject of articles. It is down to you to prove their existence. This is basic Wikipedia policy - and common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually claim that no Argentines refer to themselves as "white"? SamEV (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean that you do not claim that no Argentines call themselves white.

"They were not asked if they considered themselves to be ethnically 'white Argentinian'"

Well, we agree that some Argentines call themselves white. But self-ascription is not the only way to classify populations. Censuses and surveys that use enumerators to classify people by race are not rejected by Wikipedia, AFAIK. For example, the US census used to be conducted wholly by enumerators, and enumerators are still used in some cases; the census even imputes race and ethnicity for respondents who don't answer those questions, but I've yet to see Wikipedia claim that the US census is therefore an unreliable source. But certainly, I agree, as I've at least alluded, that we Wikipedians should not be in the business of imputing race and ethnicity. That should be done by experts.

"...outside sources classify X%, Y% or Z% of Argentines as white..."

Outside, inside, in between... The point is that those sources exist. That's indispensable.

"And it isn't down to me to prove the non-existence of the subject of articles. It is down to you to prove their existence."

No, sir. It is up to me to show that there are reliable sources that claim that it exists. I have. SamEV (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"self-ascription is not the only way to classify populations": True. I could 'classify' all Argentinians as descendants of an illicit affair between Cleopatra and Fu Manchu if I felt like it. This wouldn't be of any relevance to a Wikipedia article about ethnicity though. If a Wikipedia article purports to construct an 'ethnicity' about those who do not recognise it, it is wrong. This isn't about interpretation of evidence, but about 'facts': ethnicity only exists in the minds of those who believe in it. Or have you got sources that suggest otherwise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This wouldn't be of any relevance to a Wikipedia article about ethnicity though."

Andy, I have a source that says this, quite relevantly to ethnicity (translation): "The controversy over Argentina's ethnic composition revolves round the importance conceded to the indigenes, on one side, and to whites and Mestizos, on the other. The CIA, EFE and Coy coincide in that the white population reaches 97%, and even 98%, of the population".([64]) Relevant and reliable. SamEV (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are still suggesting that "whites and Mestizos" equals 'whites'. I further note that you have not explained the disparity between the 97-98% figure you give and the 63% of the population that 'feel white' in the survey cited above. You completely ignore the genetic evidence cited in the article. You still refuse to acknowledge that ethnicity is a social construct, and can only be meaningfully defined in terms of self-assertion. In short, you refuse to accept that any interpretation other than your own is valid for the purposes of an article on Argentine ethnicity. Clearly, nothing I write is going to change your opinion, but I hope and expect that others reading this will understand the basis on which you can describe sources as "relevant and reliable" while they are evidently so only for the purposes of describing a 'white Argentine' ethnicity if subject to your enthusiastic over-interpretation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SamEV & Pablozeta. You are go around in circles, for not responding to the core of the problem. Understand one thing: no one doubts that the majority of Argentines are of European origin and could be "considered" white. In fact, I know Argentina and I have some Argentine friends of italian origin. The problem is: there is no evidence of the existence of "White Argentine" as an ethnic group, and if you propose it (be true or not) is original research. Original research is against Wikipedia's policies. After that, the information contained in the article is basically about Immigration and Argentine people, wich makes this article unecessary. Finally, I can read Spanish, and Lizcano never speak about "White Argentine" as an ethnic group. He only says the 85% are "creoles" (or white), but never said "White Argentine" are a distinct ethnic group.(p.218) He don't makes any research, and only refers such is being refered by others, that neither do ethnographic studies: [65] and [66] (p.226). Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no body of literature that treats "white argentines" as a separate ethnic group - this is basically a neologism here in wikipedia - the same with "white colombian", "white mexican" and "white Latin American", but their turn will come I am sure. As for Lizcano, he is the only source that is considering the "white", "mestizo", "indigenous" distinction to be ethnic - but he works with a non standard definition of ethnicity - he is using the term "grupos etnicos" for talking about what some authors call "ethnic categories" that is a group to which people are ascribed based on particular phenotypical or cultural traits regardless of their own selfidentification - this is not what we generally refer to as ethnicity in academia, and Lizacno knows this. What he is interested in is not ethnicity but geographic-genetic heritage. He explains this in detail in the preamble to his "The American Ethnic groups of the second half of the twentieth century" article in Revista mexicana del Caribe, Issue 1. In short he is not working with the standard concept of ethnicity when he writes "grupo etnico", but with something closer to what we normally call "race". In any case this is a highly suspicious case where writings by a single author is being used to justify the existence of a range of articles while no attempt is being made by the editors defending those articles to investigate how well the concepts he uses and conclusions he draws are reflective of the larger academic consensus. In fact even when presented with evidence to the contrary those articles are defended on the basis of only the CIA factbook (which simply imposes American racial ethnic categories on the societies studied) and Lizcano.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the reliability of the international sources I provided above:

1) The Joshua Project: Ethnic people groups of Argentina Although some here consider this source unreliable, their figures coincide completely with the other sources. I contacted Mr. Duane Frasier (one of the owners of the site) and asked him the source for this ethnic group; he answered: The source for this group is a list from decades back. This group is composed of Argentines of European descent.[67] So this clearly demonstrated that White Argentines are a recognized ethnic group from decades ago.

2) World Statesmen.org: Argentina On the reliabilty on this source, I contacted Ben M. Cahoon (the owner of the site), and he replied: Hello Mr. Zampini, Thank you for your email and for visiting my website worldstatesmen.org. TIME Almanac Powered by Encyclopeadia Britannica 2009, they now call the group "European Extraction" and not "White/European". I originally began with the 2003 Encyclopeadia Britannica Almanac which was discontinued. I think that Mr. Andy (being a British) won't doubt on the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or will he? [68]

3) Argentina: People: Ethnic Groups., I think nobody here doubts on the reliability of the CIA Factbook, or do you?

4) Mr. Francisco Lizcano Fernández is a reputed scholar of Mexico's University. Regardless of whether he agrees or not with other scholars, he is a reliable source himself. Composición Étnica de las Tres Áreas Culturales del Continente Americano al Comienzo del Siglo XXI. Besides, going down to semantics, all these sources speak of Ethnic groups, or Composición Étnica, nor "racial groups" or "racial composition".

To finnish, the links provided by GiovBag link to advertisements of books, but it is not possible to see their real content.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand that Dr. Lizcano himself admits that he is using the word "ethnic group" in a no-standard way. Tjis is not about his reliability as a source this is about the fact that he uses terminology in a way that is incompatibe with to other sources and that he explicitly says that "white x" is not in fact what would normally be described as an ethnic group. Secondly the fact that the claim of the excistence of a White x ethnic group is backed by a single source with a self-admittedly non-standard usage is clearly a violation of WP:REDFLAG. The existence of these articles woudl require that there was a strong secondary source that unequivocally states that White argentines are considered an ethnic group by a majority of scholars. In the absence of this we are simply elevating a fringe view to factual status by having this page. Your personal communications are likewise completely inadmissible as sources per WP:V. Also the Encyclpedia Britannica in its entry about Agentinian ethnic groups does not even suggest that whites should be a separate ethnic group[69] ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablozeta is perfectly aware that the Joshua Project is not a reliable source, having already raised this at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_80#Reliability_of_the_Joshua_Project_as_source. A simple inspection of the worldstatesmen.org site will show that it is unlikely to be recognised as a reliable source. THe CIA figures seem to have been pulled out of thin air: no indication of how they were arrived at has been given, and they are clearly contradicted by later evidence. In any case, none of these sources address the issue of a self-defined ethnicity. And yet again, we are being given general sources, rather than ones specifically related to Argentina. Frankly, this endless regurgitation of the same arguments, with no attempt to discuss the real issues is getting close to disruption, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump: Why does an indication need to be given on how they arrived at their conclusion when it is so self evident? Do you think they made up those numbers for craps and giggles? Please show us how it's contradicted by "later" evidence. CIA world factbook is updated bi-weekly. Every ethnicity is self defined. Sorry but your arguments are not well thought out in my opinion.24.129.77.107 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you aren't suggesting that the CIA checks the ethnic makeup of Argentina bi-weekly? A good way to assess the CIA's data will be to see what they provide for the ethnicity of other countries. As can be seen from this comprehensive list [70], some explicitly state their source, others cite figures, while others tell us next to nothing. Spain is a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types", Switzerland is (confusingly) "German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%" - evidently the CIA thinks that 'German' etc is an ethnicity, but 'Swiss' isn't. Oh, and Denmark is "Scandinavian, Inuit, Faroese, German, Turkish, Iranian, Somali" - no proportions given. To suggest that such a ragbag collection of data is authoritative is frankly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I presume you aren't suggesting that the CIA checks the ethnic makeup of Argentina bi-weekly?"

Nobody has ever said that the CIA checks the ethnic make-up of Argentina bi-weekly. But if there was reliable information that contradicted the ethnic make up of a country and they got that information from, let's say, other countries governments it most likely would have been updated.

"A good way to assess the CIA's data will be to see what they provide for the ethnicity of other countries."

How would it? Most if not all of the CIA numbers are based how the population of those countries self identify as.

"As can be seen from this comprehensive list [71], some explicitly state their source, others cite figures, while others tell us next to nothing. Spain is a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types", Switzerland is (confusingly) "German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%" - evidently the CIA thinks that 'German' etc is an ethnicity, but 'Swiss' isn't. Oh, and Denmark is "Scandinavian, Inuit, Faroese, German, Turkish, Iranian, Somali" - no proportions given. To suggest that such a ragbag collection of data is authoritative is frankly ridiculous."

What is this irrelevant information? Again this is based on how the population of those countries self identify. They have to go with the information that is provided, whether it's limited or not. Why don't you also go argue about how people self identify on the census. Switzerland is a country with major groups that is based on the language they speak and usually the area they are from, hence the names Swiss German, Swiss French, etc.Secret killer (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on what grounds are you claiming that the CIA's figures are based on self-identification? Are you actually claiming for example that Spanish people will, when asked about their ethnicity, state that they are a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types". I'd have thought that "Spanish", or perhaps "Catalan", "Andalucían", "Basque" etc would be much more likely. If you actually wish to claim the CIA figures are correct, I'd suggest you raise this at WP:RSN. Otherwise, stop trying to spin things by putting the most ridiculous interpretation into the data for other countries, just to support your case for Argentina. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to "Argentians of European descent" or "European Argentinians". I checked Infotrac and found no references to "White Argentinians". Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And on what grounds are you claiming that the CIA's figures are based on self-identification?"

Because ethnicity is based on self-identification. That is like asking how do you know the census figures are based on self-identification.

"Are you actually claiming for example that Spanish people will, when asked about their ethnicity, state that they are a "composite of Mediterranean and Nordic types". I'd have thought that "Spanish", or perhaps "Catalan", "Andalucían", "Basque" etc would be much more likely."

I have been to Spain and a lot of Spanish people actually say they are Mediterranean. But anyways you are not thinking about possible factors, such as information for that country is limited. And it could be said that this is the case since they did not add percentages which they usually do.

"If you actually wish to claim the CIA figures are correct, I'd suggest you raise this at WP:RSN."

I do not have to or would want to. Arguing here is enough.

"Otherwise, stop trying to spin things by putting the most ridiculous interpretation into the data for other countries, just to support your case for Argentina."

I am not doing anything like that. I could actually say the same for you. Secret killer (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering there are articles for not only White communities worlwide but also for every single large ethnic community in Argentina, it is not fair that there cannot be an article for White Argentines. Any community has the right for an article of their own, and if one shall be deleted then so should all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.107.117 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This IP account has no history of past Wikipedia edits. ~~The datestamp shows that this edit was made after the 7 days allowed for comments.~~ (edit: I am unsure about the latter point, and am trying to get clarification) AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

canvassing[edit]

This friendly notice isn't neutrally worded:[72][73][74][75][76]. You will notice that some of these users have already been canvassed once by the same user...·Maunus·ƛ· 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed at AN/I. Pablozeta has stated that he was unaware that canvassing was against policy, and has apologised: [77] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.I missed that.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

resume[edit]

Keep. My impression that this article should stay. The information which provides is quite valuable and cannot be included in an article which only deals with with "Immigration" or "Composition of the Population in Argentina". Furthermore, I consider myself a White Argentinian, and the deletion of this article would be the denial of the group I consider myself a member.--Rusoargentino (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope of this article is not properly covered by any other articles: 1) Immigration in Argentina does not deal with the descendance of immigrants (five-six generations since the massive XIXth c. immigration). Talking about immigration is not the same as talking about their descendent population. 2) The many articles on European-Argentine communities do not consider their intermixing, which is -by far- the most important component of all of their descendance in Argentina. Deleting this article would imply to the average reader that immigrants descents in Argentina remained fundamentally separated along original national lines, which is not the case. 3) The article on Demographics of Argentina is not a specifics dedicated article, as it aspires to include every ethnicity in the country. The custom in WP is to further develope contents in subsidiary articles, as in Indigenous peoples in Argentina, Asian Argentine or Afro Argentine, all of which are dedicated to minority populations in Argentina. No doubt that a much larger population as this should be considered in a separate article. 4) An alternative article on "European-Argentines" would leave aside Argentines of Arab and Armenian origins, which are always considered along the Europeans in the Argentine context. In sum, given that the relevance of this article is evident, I think that the main problem remains its contested title. Anyway, as long as the terminology can be reliably sourced and it is discussed in the main body of the article, there shouldn't be any problem about this. BTW, many passions seem to be at place in this discussion, and that's not the way to reach a fine solution. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note. Other user who is responding to a canvassing request for support from Pablozeta [78]. --GiovBag (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments regarding this issue are not influenced nor inspired by pablozeta's request. He may have violated policy -out of ignorance of it, I'm sure-, but that does not invalidate my arguments regarding this AfD. Assume good faith and don't do wikilawyering, please. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is true, your arguments are not invalidated for the canvassing of Pablozeta, but it needs to be record of it. It is a matter of transparency. But you just repeat arguments that don't go to the heart of the issue. 1) Not true. Articles about immigration includes arrival, the life they made in the new country and the traces left on it. Including their descendants. 2) the many articles on European-Argentine communities don't consider their intermixing?, maybe, try with Ethnography of Argentina, Argentine people and Demographics of Argentina. 3) Afro-Argentine has an article because it is officially recognized as an ethnic group by the State and by themselves, as the different indigenous peoples. "White Argentine" don't. 4) Arabs and Armenian are considered European by whom?, at least give us a reference. Whatever, but the point is, you never go to the heart of the issue. Given that the irrelevance of this article is evident, the problem of its contested title is the least important, and it must be deleted. Saluti.--GiovBag (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet again, we are given arguments which do not address the central issue regarding ethnicity in Argentina: how is it seen by Argentines? Regardless of how the article is entitled, it cannot be legitimate unless it is about a recognised subject. As IANVS states, the migrant population of Argentina has intermarried - but as the genetic evidence etc shows, not only with other 'whites', but with the indigenous population, and with the 'black African' migrant community too. We have a survey which indicates that 63% of the Argentine population 'feel white', but no evidence that they consider themselves to be ethnically 'white Argentine', 'European Argentine', or indeed anything other than 'Argentine'. As to the question regarding Argentines of Arab and Armenian origin, where is the source for this statement that they are "always considered along the Europeans in the Argentine context"? Considered by whom?

As for 'passions' in this debate, I'll only suggest that one or two participants (not IANVS) might help cool things down if they were not to exchange messages alleging some sort of anti-white reverse-racist plot, though it is flattering in a way to be seen as the leader of the conspiracy, rather than an unwilling tool as I am usually portrayed (I may not be able to read Spanish, but Google Translate works well enough). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it appears the term "White Argentine" (or its translation in Spanish) has been used in some sources, it does not appear to me that there are sources treating the subject in detail. I'm not opposed to articles titled "White [citizen of X country]", since I think that there have been a number of sources providing significant discussion of what "White" means in the United States or Brazil etc. But while many Argentines may consider themselves "White" or "Blanco", it doesn't appear to me that this concept has received significant attention in an Argentine context. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 100% concur with IANVS --Hispasuomi (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is this only this editor's 3rd edit on Wikipedia - they seem to have shown no interest in the article subject previously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

note: Maybe could be interesting read the discussion about deletion of Blanco Argentino, one year ago. Among other reasons, becasue involved many Argentines users, and they decided to delete it. If any one understand spanish. [79]. In fact, there are some users that have appeared in the last days here "defending" the article. [80] and [81].--GiovBag (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original synthesis. Looking over the article, it's mostly about European immigration into Argentina, and Argentine demographics. There is little to no evidence of a separate "White Argentine" identity - it's a bit like "red-headed Irish" or "fat Germans". Sure these groups exist, and may be mentioned occasionally, but there is little useful that can be said about them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t believe that there are any specific Wiki policies to indisputably warrant the article’s deletion. Moreover, as a possibly relevant aside: anyone who has ever been throughout Latin America and to Argentina specifically, would instantly recognize that the vast majority of Argentines (unlike almost every other nation in Latin America, except maybe 1960’s era exiles from Cuba) do not fit the dominant visual stereotype of what non-Hispanics think of when they imagine a "Latino" / "Hispanic" / or "Spanish" person. The majority of Argentines in a visual lineup to your average American would be called "white", while the majority of Chileans, Bolivians, Peruvians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians etc - may not be. Although the semantics of the article's title might need some work and tweaking, there is no doubt that the existence of a "White Argentine" phenomenon and cultural group exists (because of an array of unique historical factors) and is mentioned in an array of sources. This carries with it spill over effects dealing with everything from the ways Argentines see themselves vis-à-vis the rest of South America – to the way that the rest of South America views Argentines. To a novice reader in the United States for instance, it may be interesting and valuable to read an article explaining the nuances of a "white Argentines", as they may not realize that not all of South Americans are Indio campesinos with darker skin and black hair – but that many Argentines are blond with blue eyes and basically indistinguishable from your average "caucasian" "Anglo-Saxon" White American of German descent (except for the fact that they speak Spanish). Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your irrelevant exercise in racial stereotyping: as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia prefers to base articles on reliable sources, rather than 'visual lineups'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, please read WP:Civil as "thanks, now go away" would most likely violate the latter. Moreover, I am not "racial stereotyping" but attempting to explain why the fact that most Argentines are seen by most of the World as "white", is notable in relation to their geographic position (for the record I personally dispute such outdated and simplistic categories - but my own view is irrelevant). So don’t make assumptions about issues which you clearly do not understand. Lastly, just because you are a self proclaimed "grump", doesn’t give you leeway to act like a dick. Redthoreau -- (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'the vast majority of Argentines (unlike almost every other nation in Latin America, except maybe 1960’s era exiles from Cuba) do not fit the dominant visual stereotype of what non-Hispanics think of when they imagine a "Latino" / "Hispanic" / or "Spanish" person'. How exactly does this not constitute stereotyping? Do you really think that references to 'Argentines [that] are blond with blue eyes... basically indistinguishable from your average white "Anglo-Saxon" American of German descent' can be seen as anything other than this. I'll assume good faith, and accept that your intentions were honest, but I think you should reconsider your words. And BTW, how 'the rest of the world' sees Argentines, even if it were sourced, would be irrelevant in an article on 'white Argentine' ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, the concept of "ethnicity" is inexact, disputed, fluid, and constantly evolving. To some researchers for instance, it is enough that one simply "self-identifies" as part of a particular ethnicity, while others almost dispute the entire concept of ethnicity altogether (particularly as it applies to "race"). And I won’t "reconsider" my wording, as they were not my own personal views, but those views that I have encountered in my own experience. At the expense of WP:OR, nearly every "white Argentine" I have ever met in the United States for instance (over 50) has spoken of how most Americans are surprised to find that they speak fluent Spanish, as to them they visually don’t appear "hispanic"/"latino" etc. Unfortunately we live in a World where people often make assumptions by stereotyping people into "races" – to acknowledge this obvious fact (or even chronicle this fact per WP:Verify) is not to endorse it. Redthoreau -- (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your notion that ethnicity is so fluid a concept that it can mean anything is fairly offensive from an anthropological standpoint. It cannot - a group does not simply become an ethnic group because they feel they have "whiteness" in common - that would make any group of people with something in common an ethnic group - e.g. football fans. An ethnic group is an ethnic group itf they have a common ethnic identity consisting of at least some cultural traits and an ideology of shared heritage and boundedness in relation to other groups - and yes it requires selfascription - so ethnic groups are not racial categories to which people are ascribed regardless of their self-identification. There is no evidence that this is the case in for whites in Argentina. But in any case there would still need to be a source that clearly states that "White Argentines" consider themselves ethnically (and not e.g. racially) different from non-white Argentines. What you are describing is simply the experience that people become racialized upon entering the US - it also happened to me , I wasn't white before I entered the US and people classified me as white because of my looks - there is no category of "white Danes" - and Danes think of themeslves as Danes not as dividd into American style ethno-racial groups. In any case it is simply anecdotal evidence which can be instantly countered by other anecdotal evidence: All the Argentines I have met identified with a particular European ethnicity (italian or Danish or german) and with an Argentinian national identity, but never as white or non-white. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm well aware of the fluidity of 'ethnicity', as I hope my arguments on this talk page and elsewhere should make clear. I'll accept that my edit summary may have been somewhat 'over-grumpy', but nevertheless, I think that my objections to your initial posting stand. The opinions/prejudices of outsiders are utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the validity of a 'white Argentine' ethnicity: if it exists at all, it is a social construct, and to suggest that the perceptions of outsiders somehow validate a contested categorisation is stereotyping - indeed, in the context of Wikipedia articles on Latin America, it seems to have been a driving force in imposing external categories in entirely inappropriate contexts. I think we can do better than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient evidence of notability of this concept as freestanding; inappropriate synthesis and original research.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really not much in the article to support the assertion that being white and being from Argentina is a notable or significant ethnic/racial classification, a lot of disparate sources are being thrown together to try to make something of nothing, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ethnography of Argentina and/or Immigration to Argentina. I agree with those above that there's not a need for a separate article on 'White Argentines' when those two articles (and Demographics of Argentina) can handle the subject perfectly well. This one is not well sourced and seems to contain more than a minimal amount of synthesis. Robofish (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Argentines of European Descent". Ideally, all these pages should be moved into their respective countries' ethnography articles. There's the rub, though. There are similar ones for most Latin American white people. The use of "white" in the case of the Argentines seems to be only mentioned occasionally, but "Europeans in Argentina" or some variant thereof appears in practically all overview literature on the country. I remember there being a related - and prolonged - argument about white people in Chile some time back, so renaming the others might not be a bad idea (with resulting changes in intros and general article text). Peace, Nononsenseplease (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Though a renamed article might have a less contentious title, that isn't the problem. You can't have an 'ethnography article' unless you have reliable evidence that the 'ethnic group actually exists as a self-ascribed group. So far, none has been given for either a 'white' or a 'European' ethnicity. Furthermore, some of the article's proponents have argued that 'white' and 'European' aren't synonymous in the Argentine context, and if this is true, then a rename would once again be imposing Wikipedia's definition of an 'ethnicity' onto the subject: violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. The problem with the article isn't the name, it is the content, as has been made abundantly clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 9 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garden International School Bangkok[edit]

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

PROD-contested, though it was not by the article creator. The article was created by a user with a clear conflict of interest. It contains only self-published sources, and after a cursory references search through multiple engines I'm fairly convinced the school fails WP:GNG. elektrik SHOOS 01:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consensus described at WP:HIGHSCHOOL is that we keep articles about secondary schools. This school qualifies. There may be sources available in the Thai language, which I'm not capable of searching. Cullen328 (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - respectable independent high school in central Bangkok's business and embassy district. Is afiliated to the Cambridge iGCE programme. The COI is not so obvious - the article may have been made by a student. Kudpung (talk) 21:26, 7 February 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 and clean up. This is not a fantastic article, but I wouldn't say it fails notability. I fully agree that the original plan of culling every bit of supposed inappropriate material isn't the best plan of action. Let's see if we can clean this up, guys. m.o.p 10:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Moore[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. WP:AUTO by a WP:SPA with WP:COI. I personally investigated every source given and found almost every single one to be completely bogus, so I removed them. Qworty (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was overly cut. Dustin Moore has producer credits for Nas Breathe CD and My Darkest Days CD song titled "The World Belongs to Me" this is listed on the CD's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjmoore (talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a WP:COI account, and as such should recuse yourself from making further additions to the article or defending it at AfD. Qworty (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Mrjmoore's alleged conflict of interest consists of, but there is nothing wrong with him defending the article at AfD if he discloses his conflict. Even if Mrjmoore were Dustin Moore himself, if he disclosed that he would be allowed to defend his own notability if he did so in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, two of the sources are Wikipedia articles (a no-no), and two sources are YouTube links (unreliable). ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Moore is founder of Mulatto and works with Nas as producer music director. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjmoore (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

^ http://hermosabeach.patch.com/articles/mulatto-tunes-into-diversity Hermosa Beach Patch Feb 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Qworty, in addition to nomination, has used up 600kb of edit history storage to reduce a healthy 13k article down to a 2k stub. The original form of the article is far superior. Anarchangel (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Far superior" is based on how one interprets it, as most of the external links in that version contain at least 3 links to WP articles (a no-no), and a host of YouTube links (deemed unreliable sources, unless confirmed SPS). I haven't seen Qworty's diffs, but if he took those links out, he was right in doing so as WP articles can NEVER be used as sources in another WP article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also D'Jais before Qworty and after Qworty. Dennis Rea article diff, Laurie Simmon diff. All within two weeks. Since Qworty's first edit was in March 2007 and Qworty was making suggestions at AfD only two months later, there is no telling how much damage he has done. I daresay most Qworty edits that are not unhelpful deletions are strategizing on how to insert PoV into articles, possibly producing stubs that by his own measure, should be deleted (assuming that is not the only one) or outright vandalism It makes me sick to my stomach. Anarchangel (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All pevious WP links have been replaced with other relialbe links. I am in the process of locating wp reliable sources in order to update what was overly cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjmoore (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom, doesn't fulfill notability criterion. Bill william compton (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now, and allow the article creator an opportunity to address the reported defects. This article was in poor condition, but also included substantial indicators of satisfying the GNG. The nominator's slash-and-burn reduction of the article has little to do with encyclopedic value. Assertions that the subject had performed on network TV programs, referenced to youtube clips of those performances, fail as a matter of form, not as substantively unverifiable, and ordinarily should be tagged for better referencing, not summarily deleted. Sourcing the subject's date of birth to his myspace page is hardly inappropriate; WP:BLP clearly allows such referencing, and except in cases where the subject's accuracy/veracity has been reasonably questioned on the point (Ann Coulter comes to mind), there's no need for further referencing, let alone information removal. There's no justification whatsoever for removal of the subject's properly licensed picture from the article; God knows the porn actress publicity photos which infest the project would be similarly subject to COI removal were the action here valid. There's no case made here for immediate deletion, rather than affording an interval for removal; animosity toward the article creator is not a legitimate motive for removal of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 9 February 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) 05:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Kasperavičius[edit]

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

I don't see why this article was ever created, or why this person is notable according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Ashershow1_talk 01:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This person was associated with Kevin Mitnick and said to be his accomplice in many crimes. While this was initially substantiated through articles in Wired, The Register and 2600 magazine in addition to a specific mention as Mitnick's "best friend" in the afterward for The Art of Deception, the articles have since all been pulled from online resources by the publishers with no explanation. Since Kasperavicius has never been charged with a crime, these claims are tenuous at best. The only thing he's known for (which can be proven) is as a video game producer for Return Fire and others, and as co-author (with Mitnick) of the CSEPS anti-hacking course taught to banks and government agencies, as an "Ex-hacker" in a 2600 produced documentary, and as a consultant on hacking to a number of Hollywood films and TV series - which probably doesn't merit inclusion here. I'm going to change my answer to comment - I just don't know. Lexlex (talk) 16:11, 12 January 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This afd was never placed in the log - so I'm going to do so and relist it. No comment on deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - sources I found that was provided indicates to me that this person atleast notable for the Return Fire video game producing.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 22 January 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) 00:54, 26 January 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) 01:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This AFD wasn't listed on a log for the first 7 days so another relist here seems reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added two references to the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of independent coverage to constitute notability. Carrite (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The first source added to the article by Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) is IMDb which is generally not considered a reliable source. The second source from eyeballeddie.com is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Verifiability. While he may pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) (per Lexlex (talk · contribs)'s comment above), the article cites no sources that verifies those facts about Kasperavičius' life. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, this article must be deleted because it does not have any third-party coverage. If, however, Lexlex or anyone else can find off-line nontrivial coverage in reliable sources about Kasperavičius (e.g. Wired and the other sources mentioned above), I have no prejudice to recreation. Sources need not be online (per WP:SOURCEACCESS) but they must be found in order for a BLP to remain on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 11 February 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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davidson Wilson[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list, while the others, as a catalog and manual of the Society are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered six different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:13, 27 January 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) 01:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of one of the earliest debating societies. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can you offer a policy based recommendation? Being a "founder of one of the earliest debating societies" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, notability for the subject has not been met. Thanks, Cind.amuse 12:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He was one of the seven founders of a society which qualifies as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, but that does not make him individually notable. Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, which I have not seen and cannot find. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Robert Davidson Wilson that verifies the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. BTW it should be noted that the nominator CindaMuse did her work with commendable care; of the seven founders, she only nominated four for deletion; the other three were left alone because they proved to be notable for other reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as above. No independent notability at all. NBeale (talk) 16:12, 13 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S.H.A.Y.[edit]

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

No indication the artist described in the article title even exists. Article sources seem to have no relation to article content. Article is a totally disjointed mess. Declined PROD. Safiel (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Delete~~ Article is a total disaster. Delete as above. Safiel (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this person, and the article fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:BIO. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 2 February 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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nehemiah Wright[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. References offered include one where the subject is simply among others in a list;another includes him in a genealogical record of his wife's family; and the third, as a catalog distributed by the Society, are not significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is not only a founder of a historically important society, but he was elected county physician of Sangamon County, Illinois. In addition to holding public office, I have added two additional independent biographical sources. John Milito (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. One reference is a paragraph, while others include him on a list among other names or again, in genealogical records. Being elected as county physician does not support notability. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:20, 27 January 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) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:John Milito does not present a convincing argument for keeping. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This man's article now draws from 11 sources. He has a passage devoted to his story in "History of Sangamon County, Illinois". John Milito (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. He was one of the seven founders of a society which qualifies as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, but that does not make him individually notable. Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources. He does rate a couple of paragraphs in a book about the history of his county, but IMO that does not add up to notability. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow. Go ahead and delete them all then. Every time I find a rule that supports my position I get three more thrown in my face. I have been to four libraries, and had to ask permission to get into archives. I have slowly built a large pile of sources that NOTE these people's lives. They are NOTED in several published works, several published by universities. But according to three random people these historical figures are not NOTABLE enough, and you are going to delete them, losing my work, losing the network of sources I've built, and making it impossible to improve them any further in order to meet this vague litany of rules. You aren't even going to at least MOVE all of it to the main page? Give me a break. John Milito (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Nehemiah Wright that verifies the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Not WP:N in own right. NBeale (talk) 16:15, 13 February 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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbury Ridgely Henry[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. The sole reference is a catalog distributed by the Society, which is not considered significant or independent. Cind.amuse 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This man took part in a significant event in history, and I have now gathered five different printed sources that confirm this. John Milito (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others, or in a genealogical record. Honestly, considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in a significant event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 19:22, 27 January 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) 01:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country.John Milito (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article now has a total of 7 sources, two of which are articles with this man as the main subject. John Milito (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete In addition to being one of the founders of the literary society (which does not qualify him as notable IMO), he was also one of the founders of the Iowa State Medical Society, and as such he rates a paragraph in an article about the history of medicine in Iowa [82] and in a book "The physicians and surgeons of the United States" [83]. This is not much documentation, but it may be all that can be expected given the time frame. However, I am not convinced that these achievements add up to personal notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Greenbury Ridgely Henry that verify the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge. Just about enough other stuff in WP:RS to be WP:N - but it's borderline. NBeale (talk) 16:17, 13 February 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 Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. Also, if someone finds an RS saying that he served in the Colorado state legislature, I'll be happy to reconsider the close. T. Canens (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wilkinson (probate judge)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Claim of notability is due to being a founder of Phi Alpha Literary Society. The sole reference is a catalog distributed by the Society, which is not considered significant or independent. [Edited to add: Additions made after creation of the AFD discussion indicate that the subject was a member of the Colorado State Legislature. However, this claim is made in membership records of the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association, which is unreliable and fails verification. The State of Colorado does not support this claim.] Cind.amuse 02:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject was elected to the Colorado State Legislature as well as Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. I have added an additional reference, where he is referred to in a book titled "Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history, embracing events, institutions, industries, counties, cities, towns, prominent persons, etc." Italics are mine. John Milito (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book on prominent persons in Kansas does not list the subject as a prominent person. See comments below. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expansions made after this AFD was started — all state legislators pass WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The claim of the subject as state legislator is actually not supported by the State of Colorado. The sole source of this claim is in a Society membership record, which is neither reliable nor independent. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I certainly agree that state legislators meet the criteria found at WP:POLITICIAN. That said, the only source that indicates that the subject was a member of the legislature is a Society membership record stating "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," while no other information or sourcing for this statement is made. The State of Colorado does not provide any documentation or historical records to support this claim. The Society membership record is neither reliable nor independent and cannot be used to establish notability. The book on prominent persons in Kansas does not list the subject as a prominent person. This book includes genealogical listings of prominent individuals in the state of Kansas. The subject (Wilkinson) is merely listed in the profile of Robert Scott Dinsmore, M.D., as his father-in-law. In the record, Wilkinson is simply listed as "Judge Robert Wilkinson, of Troy, Kans." None of the other references provided equates to significant coverage. They merely include his name in a list among others. Considering the founding of a club or society as significant or notable is subjective. Regardless, taking part in an event of this nature does not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The sources provided are not significant, reliable, or independent. Cind.amuse 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think we are being a bit hard on the sources here. The record that states "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," is not a society membership record, it is published by the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association, and the majority of the people noted in that book are not members. I concede the fact that the book on prominent persons in Kansas does not write about Wilkinson as the primary subject, most likely because he is not a native of the state of Kansas. It does tell a bit more that just his name, though: "Judge Robert Wilkinson, of Troy, Kans. Judge Wilkinson was one of the early attorneys of Doniphan county, and served as probate judge of that county about twenty years. He was a native of Jacksonville, Ill., and came to Kansas soon after the Civil war. Mrs. Dinsmore was born at Black Hawk, Colo., where her parents had removed in the early sixties." WP:BIO states: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."" I would think that the author of a book about Kansas taking the time to mention the fact that this man was a founder of an organization 67 years earlier in Illinois points to notability. John Milito (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It is certainly not my desire to frustrate you, but rather to encourage compliance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Kansas record is merely a genealogical record of Robert Scott Dinsmore, presented by the Kansas State Historical Society. These family histories attempt to list nearly everyone of genealogical, rather than historical prominence. Mention in a genealogical source isn't a measure of notability at all, but solely a measure of usefulness for genealogical research. A genealogical reference does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG, since notability is the least of the requirements for being included. Speaking as a professional historian and certified genealogist, I value genealogical records. I am very familiar with the KSHS. That said, genealogical records are not reliable for the purposes of establishing notability on Wikipedia. Regarding the record that states "Lawyer. Member of the Colorado Legislature. Probate Judge of Doniphan County, Kansas. A Founder of (P)hi Alpha Society," published by the Illinois College Alumni Fund Association? The listing is neither significant, reliable, or verifiable. Can you provide a verifiable source to support the claim that the subject was a member of the state legislature? I've searched and have been unable to verify the claim anywhere. Regards, Cind.amuse 00:19, 30 January 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) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Founder of one of the earliest debating societies (and it is still going). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can you offer a policy based recommendation? Being a "founder of one of the earliest debating societies" does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, notability for the subject has not been met. Thanks, Cind.amuse 12:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. WP:BIO states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This man founded a society. This society is "highly significant" for several reasons, two of which follow. This organization counts among its members Abraham Lincoln, due to his presentation of a speech on request of the society. In addition, this organization won one of the first intercollegiate debates in the country. John Milito (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC):[reply]
Conditional delete because I was unable to find independent verification or any details about the claim that he served in the Colorado state legislature. If that is confirmed by a state record or other Reliable Source, I will change my opinion to Keep. Merely being one of the seven founders of a notable society does not make the individual separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This article is part of a WP:Walled garden of articles about the Phi Alpha Literary Society, and IMO the separate articles about the founders should be deleted unless they are shown to be notable for something else. Their mention in the primary article is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders The article cites several sources about Robert Wilkinson that verifies the information in the article. Per WP:PRESERVE, a merge/redirect to the society he co-founded is not unreasonable. John Milito (talk · contribs) has spent much of his time working on these articles. It would be a shame to delete wholesale his hard work. I concur that most of these subjects do not pass Wikipedia:Notability; however, there is no reason not to place several sentences from each of these articles into Phi Alpha Literary Society#Founders. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source can be found to verify whether he served in the Colorado state legislature, the redirect can be undone. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a redirect/merge as suggested by Cunard. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless a RS can confirm he served on Colorado State Legislature - there is nothing on the web (other than this article) that says he did. NBeale (talk) 16:22, 13 February 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) 01:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KMEK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable stub with no references Usb10 ^{plug me in} 01:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a licensed radio station. Does not broadcast. No record that it was ever notable. No evidence that it ever broadcasted. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently not a licensed radio station, and fails WP:ORG as well, Lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here is a missing source: here. Also KMEK is found here. But when I looked at Denver Post archives and fcc.gov I found nothing. Unscintillating (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There isn't a radio station licensed by the FCC with the KMEK callsign. If more information was provided, I could do a frequency search to see if the callsign changed (it happens), but there isn't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With marketing hype like this, this and this, I don't think that this is a hoax. Internet chatter here indicates that 1080 AM is not licensed and somewhat available in Denver. We know from the news article that the station could not reach the next county (Jefferson Co., CO). FCC allows ultra-low power AM broadcasting, so there is also no reason to assume that this was a pirate (the marketing goal was internet traffic). Conclusion: there could be a story here, but if so it belongs in a [History of Denver radio] article. Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails to cross the notability or verifiability thresholds. Not a licensed broadcaster and thus does not enjoy the general notability accorded to same. I have restored the text of the article to before the June 2010 unexplained deletion of most of the text and its single reference. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 2 February 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. Personally I think this is a bit nuts and discussion of a merger should probably continue, but it seems pretty clear the consensus here favors keeping this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latham Circle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable interchange/traffic circle. Dough 48 72 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral ~~interchange is not notable. Sources are either primary, self-published or dead. --Admr Boltz 02:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)~~ I no longer have an opinion regarding this AfD. --Admr Boltz 04:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As with the first AfD, the sources do indicate notability. Just because one hyperlink became dead doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.--Oakshade (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The circle may be worth mentioning in the U.S. Route 9 in New York, New York State Route 2, and Latham, New York articles, but it does not need its own article. Dough 48 72 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SIGCOV you need to prove notability by including reliable secondary sources. The sources listed (that work) are either Primary or self-published (non WP:RS). And yes a Google News search provides hits regarding the circle, they just mention that things are near the circle, or directions that include the circle, but nothing that I saw on my glance that actually talk specifically about the circle. The deadlink seems to only cite the construction date, which while it helps with coverage, a lone RS reference in my mind does not meet "significant coverage". --Admr Boltz 01:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the sources are secondary. Unless Latham Circle wrote about itself, it's impossible for there to be "primary" sources about it. --Oakshade (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The State Department (and Federal) highway administrations would be considered primary. --Admr Boltz 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The footnote for sources specifically mentions "reports by government agencies" as acceptable. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Where, I do not see a footnote stating this at WP:PRIMARY. --Admr Boltz 04:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In WP:GNG's Wikipedia:N#cite_note-1. It states as examples of acceptable sources "reports by government agencies." --Oakshade (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. --Admr Boltz 04:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Not to belabor the point, but I've been blocked by two edit conflicts and wanted to bring up the following points: government reports are not referred to by WP:PRIMARY (it mentions accounts of political decisions, but that's a completely different thing), and WP:PRIMARY does not absolutely prohibit primary sources.
        --Gyrobo (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article about the best-known intersection in the Albany, New York area. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is well known does not mean it can't be covered elsewhere. Dough 48 72 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons described in the last AfD: the subject is referenced by reliable sources (namely, the New York and U.S. departments of transportation, and the Times Union), and it's linked by other articles. I'm also finding other sources that aren't yet in the article, [84], [85]
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My opinion hasn't changed since the previous AfD (my username then was wadester16). I'm of the opinion that an article that gives solid, sourced information that doesn't hurt anybody or take away from other articles shouldn't be deleted. As for where this could be moved, where do you move it? To Latham, New York? To US Route 9 in New York? To New York Route 2? To all of them, and outright repeat content? Best off leaving it as its own article and refer to it in all those articles. upstate NYer 06:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In New Jersey, several traffic circles are described in the article of the town they are in. For example, White Horse Circle is mentioned in White Horse, New Jersey. Dough 48 72 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Several articles link to the White Horse Circle redirect. If there were reliable sources describing that circle's history, having it as a separate article would be pretty useful. WP:LOCAL deals with the logic behind that.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see any reason why the Latham Circle can't be mentioned in the Latham article, along with the technical road details in the US 9 and NY 2 articles. Dough 48 72 02:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There would be a duplication of content if this article was deleted, because the circle would need to be redefined in the context of each article that presently links to it; there would also be no one location where coverage of the subject would be comprehensive.
        --Gyrobo (talk) 15:38, 5 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Portugal[edit]

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

A TV channel that doesn't yet exist E. Fokker (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that it ever will exist, no dates, no sources, nothing - even the "Official site" doesn't exist. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article's creator has commented at the article Talk page, Talk:Cartoon Network Portugal - I've pointed them over here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Possible Merge Delete for now until channel does actually exist. If the article crops up again (or can be substantiated with reliable sources), it should be merged in to Cartoon Network as a sub-section. - Cactusjump (talk) 20:50, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNSA Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record company. References are to trivial mentions or primary sources. VQuakr (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the band is licenced, has produced matierial from numerous bands, and have distribution deals in New York, New Jersey, and are growing into new markets. All of this can be evidenced through photographs, and receipts. Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. The pursuit of a spot on wikipedia is evidence of this, as well as its spot on the websites listed on the page. They list the label, and recognize it on Primary websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 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) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete 7 Ghits, all from Wikipedia. Therefore fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:CORP at the very least. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent sources. Nothing satisfying WP:CORP. (I'm not sure what part of what Makk is saying above is meant to say UNSA are notable). duffbeerforme (talk) 10:12, 3 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parade (group)[edit]

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

Promotional article for band without released album Travelbird (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 January 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) 01:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Band hasn't released any albums to date, therefore they haven't charted. Fails WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable in any way. --Ezhuks (talk) 00:29, 3 February 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) Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APOX[edit]

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

5 day old newly released computer game without any assertion of particular notability. Travelbird (talk) 08:22, 26 January 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) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Defer for a week or so, given the relative novelty of this game, it's entirely possible that it WILL be notable (through mutliple, in-depth RS reviews) within the next week or several in-depth reviews. That is, if it's not already notable via what Google News has been able to find on it so far. At any rate, it's not clear to me why this article was immediately tagged for deletion, rather than sourcing and notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Defer - It seems lately that review sites have been slower about catching up on reviews, seems a bit early to nomination for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With a little research I turned up two references, one from a source considered reliable at WP:VG/RS and one that looks actually better than the first to me, and which I've proposed to be included at WP:VG/RS. With it already having attracted arguably WP:GNG-satisfying coverage, I'm pretty sure it's notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far all of the sources provided simply prove that the game exists. None of them show any notability. Travelbird (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't appear to understand what "notability" means. Coverage in independent reliable sources is what demonstrates notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really want to get into an argument, but you don't seems to know what notability is. Most of the sources are simply redacted versions of the release announcement. this comes closer to a review but is still rather short. WP:N also requires "more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Notability need to be long term. The article also needs to show how this particular game is notable i.e. what sets it apart from all the other games out there. By the standards set out above, every commercially published video game would be notable as press releases and blog reviews can be found covering it. Travelbird (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - On Wikipedia, all "notability" really means is "should we have an article on this?", and WP:GNG defines that as about independent reliable source coverage. Your claim that the article needs to assert notability is specifically false; "assertion of notability" is not a part of WP:N, it's a matter of CSD A7, which does not apply to this game because it is not a person, individual animal, organization, or Web content. Wikipedia's notability rules are sufficiently fascist and privileging of the viewpoint of soulless organizations that exist to make people like Rupert Murdoch richer without arrogating additional, consensus-not-in-evidence criteria about whether the sources say the topic is important. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, gamershell is a reliable source. No, a press release isn't independent coverage. Co-Optimus needs vetting for reliability. However, how about Rock Paper Shotgun's interview with Mark Currie of BlueGiant? Trivial piece at indiegames.com. I need to see one more piece of coverage - search continues. Marasmusine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That RPS interview is just lovely; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 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) 01:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the Co-Optimus source is unlikely to pass, but the other two sources are reliable. Combined with the small indiegames.com found by Marasmusine I'd say this is Stub or Start-worthy for inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently non-commercial in tone. Doubtlessly up a bit sooner than an article on this topic should have been, but I'd advocate use of the rule of reason here: "Is Wikipedia better served by the inclusion or deletion of this article?" The piece as it stands has some early sourcing going and may be of use to WP users; it's deletion would not advance the encyclopedia project, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 10 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Lahiri[edit]

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

WP:AUTO by non-notable Indian dermatologist, who is a WP:SPA for self-promotion. Tagged for notability for a year and a half now without any improvement. Most of the sources provided by subject have turned out to be bogus and have been removed. There is no actual WP:RS to demonstrate notability of any sort. Qworty (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google Scholar citations are insufficient for notability under WP:ACADEMIC. The various positions he has held with medical societies and journals might come close to making him notable, but I don't think he is quite there. --MelanieN (talk) 18:38, 26 January 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) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no notability here. Being on an editorial board of a specialized journal is not being notable. Perchloric (talk) 04:28, 9 February 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) 01:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McSweeney's Books[edit]

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

This article is primarily an inventory report that details the publishers out of print, out of stock, or presumably in stock status for all titles that it has published. There is no information or description about any of these titles and there is no source except Baker & Taylor's TitleSource 3, which changes hourly. The inventory status for these titles is not a static fact and all of this information can be changed whenever the publisher decides to reprint. This article also formats titles and ISBNs in a manner that is different than how most articles treat this information. Further, this article seems to be a content fork because the historical and background information is available in McSweeneys. There has been a request to merge this article with McSweeneys but I do not see any content of value here to move into the other article. I make the recommendation that this article be deleted. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog. I see very little useful to the encyclopedia here.Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't like spam. Spam, spam, spam, spam ... Clarityfiend (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 2 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meryem Uzerli[edit]

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

Actress that played minor roles only in several films. Fails:Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers Travelbird (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is one of the main characters of Muhteşem Yüzyıl which is the most watched soap opera in Turkey now.[86] Hürrem (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 January 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) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Hürrem.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ENT. Requires mulitple major roles, this person only has one. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search on her name gives 633,000 hits. That is enough to establish that she is not a unknown actress. And infact it shows that even though she might have only had one major role she has with that role established the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actress also has an Turkish wikipedia article which also shows that she has reached fame in her native country and are in fact a actress which should have a wikipedia article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that fact that this is not really a valid keep or delete reason: the Turkish article was created on January 26, 2011 on the same day the English language article was. By your reasoning I guess that would be a reason to delete it? Travelbird (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally ignoring the 633,000 hits reason. Typical of the deletionists..--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also even though the turkish article might have been created it has not been deleted or anything eve though it has been a week since its creation there. It proves that in Turkey the subject has notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GOOGLEHITS it's an invalid argument. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in this Google News Archive search indicate that Uzerli is notable per WP:BIO. See this article from Medya73 for one example. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 11 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xanaxtasy[edit]

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

The artlce is for a digital download single (of songs previously available on a 'best of' album); it's not notable in anyway. Doktor Wilhelm 14:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 January 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) 01:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though the band is notable enough, this "album" isn't. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:44, 2 February 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) Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Akkersdijk[edit]

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

I don't believe that every speed cuber should have his or her own wikipedia page. the subjects are not notable outside of the cubing community to warrant individual pages.

Current speed cubing records and record holders should be merged into the Rubik's Cube article page and past record holders should not have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdeonusIX (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's personal beliefs aside, as was noted in the edit log of April, 2008, this individual is notable for being a world record holder. The article was tagged A7 the same day it was created, and it was declined. Though the sourcing could be better (2 YouTube videos), this person does indeed pass WP:GNG and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - which sources demonstrate "significant, independent coverage" of the subject, as WP:BIO requires? SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Feliks Zemdegs where I argue that this proposal should have been reverted on sight under WP:SNOWBALL. Short version; we list competitors who are not world champions in sports such as competitive eating, arm wrestling, canoeing, bowling, and darts. Also. there is more coverage of Erik Akkersdijk than there is for many of the names I listed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Feliks Zemdegs. Examples:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023019_2023018_2023037,00.html

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/12/any-rubiks-cube-configuration-can-be-solved-in-20-moves-or-fewer-study/#more-19763

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-01-14/calendar/gleaming-the-cube/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/electricdreams/1980s/toys

http://www.physorg.com/news200889568.html

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3627/mathematicians-solve-every-rubiks-cube-combo

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8141760/aussie-teen-breaks-rubiks-cube-record

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVw0etMLvSSsBt2NZcg7TSEItQTQ

http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/p.php?i=2005AKKE01

http://www.rubiks.com/i/company/media_library/pdf/Rubiks%20Fast%20Cube%20Facts%20February%202010.pdf

Guy Macon 03:01, 3 February 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) 05:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Burlage[edit]

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

This article is about a musician for which I am unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. A google news search turns up a lot of event announcements, no coverage about him. There is a mention of a "Guy Burlage" in this NY Times article but it is unclear if it is the same person, and in any case, falls well short of being significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article a bit and added citing in various places. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The sourcing doesn't do much to establish notability. The billboard reference is simply a directory entry. The WRRW-LP reference is coverage from a local radio station. The Virginia Pilot article is an obituary for the subject's father. The NY Times as I stated in my nomination is him being mentioned at the end of an article and is barely related to him. The two Washington Post articles are about the band Genghis Angus. That may arguably establish the band as notable, but doesn't establish Guy Burlage as independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICIAN & WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 January 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) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Qworty. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Sédilot[edit]

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

This article is about an early French colonist in Quebec which does not make any assertion of notability. I can find genealogical sites that list him [87], [88], but they do not provide any information aside from some documentation of his life. He is listed in this old book. This self-published book provides pretty much the same information as the genealogical sites. Whpq (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no good reason for retaining the article.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 January 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) 01:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dust Delete. He Sédilot, but apparently didn't do a lot that was particularly notable. Just a well documented farmer/pioneer. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A well documented farmer/pioneer of that vintage is, by definition, a notable farmer/pioneer. Coverage here, here (in French), and here, among others. Should be kept just on the basis of that but seeing as I've worked on other Quebec history articles I'm tempted to have a go at actively rescuing this. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have made a modest improvement of the article. Google Book searches for "Louis Sedilot" and "Marie Grimoult" suggest there is much additional material that could be relevant to the article, but it is either in French or not available in a full-text format. In any case "one of the first French colonists in Quebec" is an adequate claim to notability, and the significant coverage in reliable independent sources carries the article through WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DustFormsWords. Edward321 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 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. We've only got two users making substantive arguments after two weeks of debate, and neither argument is particularly strong or weak, so I don't really see any consensus emerging here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Jane Kendrick[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly this article is currently in pretty poor shape. That said, the general notability guidelines that the nominator references indicates that a person or entity is notable if it has mutliple third pary reliable sources with nontrivial coverage--and WP:WEB indicates that web content is notable if its "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries [and] websites...."
This person's personal writing has attracted not only local interest (not only in Arizona but also in the heart of the Mormon corridor up in Salt Lake City) but also national and international coverage.
(That said, only personal information should be referenced to Kendrick's own writings and more information needs to be culled from available 3rd-party sources.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 January 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) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was the OP, but not the relister. Can't see how she is incredibly notable, except for being interviewed once. Not notable enough for article which talks mostly about her blog. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't be sure, but it seems that OP seems to discount news coverage from Mormon Times, etc. Such coverage is more than local (comparable to a neighborhood Seventh Day Adventist journal in some town in the U.S. Midwest, or a neighborhood Jewish journal in Brooklyn or a neighborhood Muslim journal in Detroit). Mormons make up 1.7% of the U.S. population, according to the recent Pew survey, the exact number of American Jews and a bit less than twice as many American Muslims, so such coverage would obviously be comparable to mainstream journalistic coverage in the Adventist, the Jewish, or the Muslim press.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added later (...To give my comment more granularity: Along with the subject's being interviewed on network morning news (NBC's Today) in '08 and by Interfaith Voices in 2010, in an article surveying the Mormon blogosphere in the peer-reviewed journal BYU Studies, Emily W. Jensen, a reporter for Mormon Times whose beat encompasses this area, singled out Kendrick's blog along with one other mom blog as "nationally recognized.")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no problem with "Mormon" coverage. I don't care what the percentage of the US population is LDS for this topic. Just reading the article, there is nothing in it that demonstrates her notability. All it does is say she is a columnist and has a blog; that doesn't make her notable. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm----you're probably right. Although I don't read mommy blogs, I'm sure their readership outpaces the political blogs I do check in on frequently (my probably sharing with many WPdian's "systemic bias" in this regard... [Addendum: Here is a talkpage section devoted to this topic.]); IAC, I'll at least cite references for the information that had already been contributed to this article and then in addition will source a few third-party source that esteem Ms. Kendrick (aka C Jane) of note as an author. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Garden - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:39, 7 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory floyd[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice. I've moved the article to Gregory Floyd (capitalization). No opinion on the AfD. --Nlu (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 January 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) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the president of the largest Teamster's Union local in the country. Add "Teamster" to the Google search terms, and you will find extensive coverage of this person. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's true. He's got plenty of coverage in RS, one of those union leaders who's always in the paper. EEng (talk) 16:08, 2 February 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) 23:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Ukraine)[edit]

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

A TV channel that doesn't yet exist E. Fokker (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Possible Merge As I stated in the for deletion of Cartoon Network: Portugal this article should be deleted unless reliable sources of its existence (or creation) can be found. If the article is cited with reliable sources, it should be merged in to Cartoon Network. - Cactusjump (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reference provided gives no insight on this potential new channel, but if more sources are found, Merge per Cactusjump. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:25, 8 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Childhood Education International[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No independent sources can be found for this organization. Google search results all result in self-published business listings, Facebook pages, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's creator:

The organization listed was founded in 1892, and holds historical interest as one of the first professional organizations for teachers. Its historical importance is reflected by its significant collection in the University of Maryland archives, see http://www.lib.umd.edu/archivesum/actions.DisplayEADDoc.do?source=/MdU.ead.histms.0056.xml&style=ead. Through its work with The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (http://www.ncate.org/MemberOrganizations/tabid/588/Default.aspx), ACEI helps set national standards for professional school personnel. Aceieditorial (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said on the article's talk page, I think this subject could potentially be notable based on a few minutes of noodling around, but this article reads like an advertisement and would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. As such, it should be deleted, but I don't believe I would be opposed if a neutral editor rewrote it. Based on the author's username, it certainly appears to be written by a representation of the organization, which poses an obvious WP:COI. Zachlipton (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   * From the article's creator:

The entry has been modified to remove areas that may have read as an advertisement. It was modeled on currently active pages about similar organizations (see NAEYC article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAEYC), and was placed in response to inquiries about the historical/social significance.Aceieditorial (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 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) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is a long overdue creation pointing to an unfortunate lack of work by Wikipedians in a needed area; every one of the red links should have been made articles long ago. What a shame it had to surface in a period when there are many working to delete articles and far fewer obvious candidates left to delete. 5,690 Scholar hits, which for Scholar is a Leviathan. Most topics at AfD are lucky to get that in Google Books. As can be seen from the Google Books hits, ACEI are a creator of, for the purposes of the article, primary source material; that resource is clogged with their own publications. The Scholar resource, scholars that quote them or use them as citations, is a better bet for finding sources. Anarchangel (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News Archive search. See this article, this article, and this article from The New York Times. Cunard (talk) 23:57, 11 February 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 G7 - can be recreated when the network starts up Skier Dude (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

A TV channel that doesn't yet exist. E. Fokker (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the article being deleted.The reson why I set this article up is because I thought that Cartoon Network (Hong Kong) would be launching in like around a year or 2.So until Cartoon Network (Hong Kong) is announced,This article can be destroyed. IanRootBeerDubber —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 4 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher DiDomenico[edit]

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

Contested Prod - Non-notable ~~junior~~ hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Pparazorback (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

striked out junior that was inadvertedly type in the deletion reason. Still as a professional, the player has yet to meet notability requirements per NHOCKEY. -Pparazorback (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DiDomenico is a professional player, not a junior. Canada Hky (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Force of habit from the constant AFDs of Junior players, didn't even realize I typed Junior -Pparazorback (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he is a professional hockey player, he doesn't yet meet WP:NHOCKEY. Thus far, his best claim to notability is being on the QMJHL All Rookie Team one year. That isn't notable enough for me. If he ever plays in the NHL or plays 100 games in the AHL, the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 January 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) 01:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also fails WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Meade[edit]

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

Dubious notability, very thin on sources. Another user tried to AFD but didn't finish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to being notable. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have won the highest level of amateur bodybuilding contest in the USA in 1993, which probably qualifies him per WP:ATHLETE. Iron Man (magazine) is a reliable source for that kind of info. He is involved in some sort of business feud with A. Scott Connelly and another supplement marketer, and the wiki page has been used by both sides (by means of various SPAs) to promote their POV by adding flattering and respectively unflattering material about him which cites some sources that are hard to verify. (Connelly's page suffers the same problem). Tijfo098 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meade does get the kind of coverage you'd expect from that. Here's an interview with him on a BB site. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the IFBB/NPC North American Championships don't even have a Wikipedia page, so there's nothing to even redirect this article to. A troubled high-maintenance biography (see WP:AN) of little value, which is best deleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 January 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) 01:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—There is a lot of conflicting information about this guy and some suggestion of defamation. It's not clear what are facts and what are fiction. Apparently he even appeared on Fox News to talk about supposed online trolling perpetrated against him.[89] I'm not sure that we can properly build a reliable article about him. Here is his own biography.—RJH (talk) 20:11, 2 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federrico[edit]

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

No context for why this is important, request for citations added in April 2008, no citations added. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm not familiar with Venezualan television. This book would seem to indicate the show wasn't very successful, but it did get a sequel. [90], and [91] are two examples of where the show is mentioned. Seeing as it is a 1980 show in a non-English country, sourcing may be hard to come by on line. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 29 January 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) 01:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to agree with Whpq.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. Could you please explain why you agree? Your recent pattern of voting keep is usually keep per someone else with zero explanation. LibStar (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. 8 gnews hits [92] however many of these hits are program listings rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to format your link correctly.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also did some additional research and I am now even more firm with my Keep because the actors in it are very notable and "famous" in venezuela. Also 8 gneews hits are still 8 gnews hits. Which in any case establish minimum notability needed for Weak keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a sitcom isnt American doesnt make it non-notable. Neither the fact that its from way back in the 80s.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that any sources published in Venezuela, which we would expect to constitute the majority of potential sources for this subject, would contain the word "Venezuela"? When searching for sources about American topics do you expect them to contain "United States"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense to me?. I truly dont understand what you mean. sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in reply to Libstar, as I thought was clear from the indentation. Libstar's search included the word "Venezuela", which there is no reason to expect to appear in any sources for this subject, so can't be taken as evidence against notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I apologize for the misunderstanding. And I do agree with you. It seems a bit odd. That cant be taken as evidence against notability, true.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil when you search google news with Federrico alone it turns up a lot of people with the name Federrico. It would not be necessary for a US show to add united states but I had to target the google news search. Secondly BabbaQ fails to understand that passing mentions or program listings do not qualify as in depth coverage. Lastly, I never said a show being from venezuela or from the 1980s makes it less notable. That is putting words into my mouth. My !vote stands. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a shocker..--BabbaQ (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE LibStar (talk) 02:05, 6 February 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Elementary School (Oakland, California)[edit]

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

Typical elementary school, with no indication of notability. Elementary school articles are usually redirected to a collective article about the school district, in this case Oakland Unified School District, which has a list of elementary schools at List of Oakland California elementary schools, which includes mention of this school. Edison (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentLack of notability is the basis for most deletions in AFDs. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes# Education says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." That seems appropriate here. Edison (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oakland Unified School District per usual practice for elementary schools. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 1 February 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) 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Receipt of the US federal government Distinguished Schools award, which is documented in a third-party reliable source, is a claim to notability that is probably stronger (because of its rarity) than the Blue Ribbon School designation that has long been deemed to be a basis for keeping articles about individual schools that received it. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady's statement that this school has received a rarer award than schools that have received the Blue Ribbon School designation. Because all Blue Ribbon schools are deemed notable, a school that has received the more prestigious Distinguished Schools award should also be deemed notable and thus kept. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per normal practice and note the award at the school district article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:55, 12 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tweet Me Harder[edit]

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

Lacks substantial assertion of notability, no third-party sources. PROD contested by creator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if the article creator is allowed to weigh in. Reasons: notability of hosts David Malki ! and Kristofer Straub, consistency of activity since June 2009, affiliation with a company that only publishes works that are deemed notable (that is, by their own guidelines)-- e.g their website has an audience of 100,000 unique visitors per month. I should also note that each live broadcast of the programme tends to have a listenership of around 100+... if that is at all an impressive number. Of course, I have no way to verify this unless someone happens to have screen shots from the live feeds. Also note that this doesn't take into account the audience number of the show's back catalog, which I have no way of ascertaining, although I imagine it's significantly larger. Their first live-audience show was held at The Complex Theater, which I suppose is a venue of note. And then there's the iTunes feature: Go to iTunes Store > Podcats > Staff Favorites and you'll see that it's the third podcast listed. I've been unable to find a way to link to that specific page, though here is iTunes' page for TMH. Teraghast (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article creator is allowed to weigh in. Sorry, I only just now noticed your comments at the article talk page, but I don't think the things you have brought up there and here demonstrate notability. For starters:
  - Having a notable host/author doesn't automatically make something notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED, which argues that notability is not inherited). Books by notable authors have been put up for deletion in the past (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Up to Now (autobiography)); in cases where they have been kept, it was because someone improved the article with reliable sources, not because the authors/creators were notable. Notability comes from substantial coverage in third-party sources, which you have not provided.
  - The same goes for the point you posted at the talk page, that only "notable" webcomic authors (or, more specifically, authors with over 100,000 visitors per month) are permitted to contribute to the podcast; that's essentially the same type of argument.
  - It's not true that "topatoco only publishes works that are deemed notable". They have no affiliation with Wikipedia and no "notability requirement" that is comparable to ours; topatoco is a T-shirt and poster selling website that webcomic authors can choose to join. Webcomics that sell things there and do not have Wikipedia articles include Yamiloo, Tiny Kitten Teeth, Seldon (webcomic), Sailor Twain, and more.
  - 100 listeners is not really an impressive number (there are random kids on YouTube with more than that), and in any case, big numbers are not an appropriate argument for notability.
  - Having a broadcast at a notable theater is not proof of notability; again, notability is not inherited.
  - Being the #3 selling podcast in one category on one site is, again, not proof of notability; notability comes from substantial discussion in reliable, unaffiliated sources.
  - On the talk page, you pretty much admitted that all the information available is from the show itself (see WP:Primary sources and, not quite as relevant, WP:IN-UNIVERSE). Since notability comes from coverage in non-primary sources, this pretty much means notability is not demonstrated. And it's not true that there are no reliable sources for webcomics-related stuff; there are tons of webcomics which have Wikipedia articles that demonstrate notability through reliable sources (see Category:Webcomics; some random examples include Dinosaur Comics, xkcd, Questionable Content, Megatokyo—a featured article—, and Gunnerkrigg Court—a [outdated] good article).
- For these reasons, I still believe the article has not demonstrated notability sufficiently. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point 2: What? No, the 100,000 number is regards to TopatoCo, not TMH. I've managed to contribute to the podcast, and I'm neither a webcomic artist nor at all notable.
  - Point 3: Deemed notable by their own opinions; Wikipedia isn't the only entity that can make definitions regarding what is or isn't notable, and at no point did I say that TopatoCo's notability requirement was equatable with Wikipedia's. I figured that fact was apparent, so didn't feel the need to specify "deemed notable, but not necessarily by Wikipedia standards". The point is that TopatoCo is not a vanity press that anyone is allowed to become involved with. Additionally, I don't see how "there are webcomics affiliated with this company that don't have articles here" is an argument of any substance. It's possible that, simply, no one has taken it upon themselves to create those articles (or, perhaps more likely, that they're been deleted). Webcomics (/artists) that sell things there and do have a Wikipedia article include Wondermark, White Ninja, Subnormality, Sheldon, Sam and Fuzzy, Questionable Content, Posterchild, Pictures for Sad Children, Octopus Pie, Maximum Fun, Little Gamers, Jonathan Coulton, Kate Beaton, Gunnerkrigg Court, Jonathan Rosenberg, Jamie Smart, Explodingdog, Dresden Codak, Dinosaur Comics, Christopher Baldwin, Dorothy Gambrell, Buttercup Festival, Brandon Bird, Axe Cop, Alien Loves Predator, and A Softer World. (Oh, and Starslip Crisis, of course.) Which is to say, the vast majority of their inventory.
  - Point 4: No, it's not, but I feel the need to point out (because I love semantics) that those YouTube videos have the space of time from when they're uploaded to the present moment to acquire those views; this is a number acquired over the space of about an hour and persist for the duration. Not actually making an argument here, just being a jerk.
  - Point 6: Having your podcast posted on iTunes equals affiliation? And it's not simply an automated list of the best "selling" podcasts; someone working for iTunes specifically listed it because they found it worthy of being featured.
  - Point 7: Where did I ever say that there are no reliable sources for webcomics? I just said that there aren't, as far as I'd been able to find at that point, any "reliable" 3rd party sources for this subject. However, here are some people talking about it: [1] [2] [3] [4]. Are they reliable enough to be considered appropriate 3rd party sources? If so, where can they be referenced on the occasion that they don't provide any information that would be useful in-article (in which case they could just be cited as sources)?
  - Also, I did admit, not pretty much. Because in the aforementioned admitting-to, I was arguing for the reliability of the information, not the notability. Because I was then under the assumption that that was what was being called into question re: the lack of 3rd party sources. But if the 3rd party sources are less a matter of information and more a matter of proving "notability", then see above. I'll continue to work the Google mines to see if I can choke out any more, but these things aren't instantaneous. Teraghast (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 29 January 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) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced that any of the coverage identified in the article or my own searches constitutes a "reliable source", and the article therefore fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hhhhhuuu-vwhelp. I tried. Thanks for helping, fellow TMH fans! I curse your ancestors' ghosts! Well, at least I learned some valuable lessons. Like, that Wikipedia's concept of notability is only tangentially connected to a realistic definition of the term "notability".

And that Wikipedia need to work harder on consistently applying its policies. I didn't want to play the Other Stuff Exists game, because I realized that it would more likely result in the deletion of any cited articles, rather than make anyone say "Oh, well in that case, I guess you're right"... but, oh, I could have totally played the Other Stuff Exists game. Like, for example, a variety of other podcasts. Or a number of minor deities in a here-unnamed pantheon that are lacking sources of any kind, neveryoumind reliable ones-- but not wanting to start a sort of Internet Age Ragnarok-simulacrum, I won't dish. Just saying, though.

Aaand that Wikipedia doesn't realize (or chooses to ignore) that it, too, lives inside the internet, and thus absorbs the same taint of unreliability and unimportance that it seems to find so unsavoury in other internet-based entities.

But mostly that this whole ordeal has herniated all of my discs and that I am clearly not Wikipedia material. This is not the proper use of a deletion page. I need to go lie down now. Teraghast (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once Tweet Me Harder receives nontrivial coverage in two reliable sources, the subject will pass Wikipedia:Notability and the article can be recreated. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Without coverage in third-party reliable sources, the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Cunard (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Teraghast (talk · contribs)'s presentation of four sources above: these sources are not third-party reliable sources because they are self-published blogs that have not received editorial oversight and fact-checking. Reliable sources are newspaper, magazine, and journal articles, as well as books. If Tweet Me Harder receives coverage in newspaper articles from two different non-local newspapers, it will pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no WP:RS coverage at all as far as I can see. NBeale (talk) 16:24, 13 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Football Alliance[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur/semi-professional sports league, fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Only sources provided are either trivial or the league itself, failing WP:RS. Also have concerns about WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:ADV. All but one team in the league listed has either had its page deleted or was never created. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. I have full reason to believe that this campaign is no longer in good faith. Mr. McDonald has systematically tagged every single semi-pro football article on Wikipedia with either proposed deletion or articles for deletion under the guise of WP:N. Even ones that have sources have been pooh-poohed on technicalities. The Hartford Knights article had at least a half-dozen substantial sources on it, including AP articles and a reference book, and it still got tagged with PROD. Mr. McDonald has even attempted to initiate a rule banning semi-pro articles but has been overruled, so he's acting within his twisting of the rules to do it anyway. This is no longer about following criteria but instead about eliminating all mention of semi-pro football from Wikipedia. This is getting out of hand. P.S. For the record, I have no involvement in any semi-pro football team or league and never have.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Lots of issues there, I'll break into points for easier reading/response. If the discussion goes beyond this, we should move it to another place. Heck, maybe we should do that now... but I feel the need to resopnd here for the moment:

Second prod I did mistakenly place a second prod on one article that should have gone to AFD, but it wasn't intentional and it has been corrected.
Rule ban I'm curious what rule I attempted to initiate to ban semi-pro articles and even more curious who overruled it.
Systematically tagged I have indeed proposed for deletion and/or initiated AFD on many semi-pro articles that I believe do not meet notability standards. I went slowly through the group so that those enthusiastic about those articles would have time to respond.
Hartford Knights deletion I think the Hartford Knights article was one of them, but it was deleted by User:Courcelles and not me (I can't delete anything on Wikipedia, I don't know how and I'm not sure I even have the rights to do so).
Technicalities As for the "technicalities" I can only assume that we have a disagreement on what constitutes a reliable source, as many of the articles only sources are the team or league website (which is most certainly not independent) or fan-based discussion sites/groups (which is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards).
DRV is the place But as I mentioned before, I can't delete anything--someone else has to come along and agree that the position I put forward is in the best interest of Wikipedia and then take action. If you believe that these are incorrect, I encourage you to send those deleted articles to deletion review and other people can take a closer look at it.

Summary All of that really has nothing to do with this article in question, which is poorly sourced and suffers from the same notability issues the others did.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 31 January 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) 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable football league, no reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE news coverage in the local newspaper. Secret ^account 22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Truth be told, I'm somewhat baffled by football project members on the one hand hotly asserting that obscure football coaches from teensy collegiate amateur programs are presumptively notable, while on the other hand claiming that entire semi-pro leagues aren't. I am utterly baffled by attempts to hijack the notability criteria of NSPORTS, which in the case of football solely pertain to individuals, and apply it to entire leagues, without any consensus on the subject. Gain a consensus over at NSPORTS for league criteria first. Ravenswing 04:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you asked simply because there are verifiable, independent reliable sources and consensus support for notability of the college programs--some of which are over 150 years old and have a large amount of coverage in the news; generally (but not always) semi-pro teams and leagues do not. Aside from that, there are a multitude of reasons at least from my perspective. Obviously there is disagreement. If you understood my perspective, you might be inclined to agree. But that's all general stuff and not really pertinent to this article.--Paul McDonald 13:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You made the contrary argument with those purportedly "notable" small college football programs - that routine, local coverage satisfied the GNG, whether or not the subject was discussed in any detail at all, let alone the "significant detail" required. I see no reason why such coverage does not satisfy notability requirements for entire leagues. That being said, I'm glad you appreciate there's disagreement, which through poor logic some people conflate with lack of understanding. Ravenswing 21:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, you totally missed my point. Ah, well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have pointed out, WP:NSPORT has no bearing on leagues or teams, although it applies to persons who played. Until there is some subject specific guideline or prohibition against semi-pro or amateur leagues, they would be judged on WP:ORG "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." After that, it comes down to individual opinion about what's significant, and opinions vary. Under its previous name, the NYAFL, it received, from multiple sources, what I would call significant coverage. [93], and although none of the teams are in the nomination, some of them got coverage as well [94]. Searching under the newer name, not as much coverage [95] and [96]. I'll refrain from getting into the other issues raised in the discussion. Mandsford 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No significant coverage (one of the provided references makes no mention of the Northeastern Football Alliance) outside routine news coverage in local newspapers. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gotta agree with nom, it's an amateur sports league failing WP:NSPORTS, as simply non-notable. Lacks very significant coverage. It's full of redlinks, which shows that there ain't much coverage about the topic elsewhere either, and references are in a pretty poor shape. The number of reliable sources also looks tiny. I'm not sure about WP:NPOV or WP:ADV that nominator mentioned, but they might be little concerns as well. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NSPORTS is almost entirely about individual athletes and does not set criteria for the notability of football leagues. Judge articles against the GNG by all means, though... bobrayner (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:GNG doesn't prohibit local sources, and WP:ROUTINE appears only to refer to events rather than entitites, so I don't buy in to either of those arguments. That said, the level of coverage in the local news sources looks fairly limited in scope. Maybe just enough to qualify as significant coverage, but not as convincing as I thought it might be. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One reference in a local paper is not remotely enough for notability. NBeale (talk) 16:26, 13 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olean Diesel[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Only coverage provided is trivial coverage. Non-notable amateur sports team. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 29 January 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) 00:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are we approaching the Wikipedia:No one really cares border here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm a Delete on this one (nominator).--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get it done, delete per nom. The only coverage is a handful of short pieces from the local newspaper. cmadler 13:52, 8 February 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 appreciated the impassioned arguments of many arguing to keep the article, but the additional sources presented do not meet Wikipedia definition of non trivial coverage from independent reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Miller[edit]

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

Not notable. Can't find anything about her (amongst the other, more famous Merry Millers) that isn't just a gossipy put-down. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment these [97] appear to be about her, or at least quoting her, although they are behind paywalls and most appear to be reprints of a single AP or UPI story. Not sure they are non-trivial more than passing, but the Crain's New York Business one may be significant coverage. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the full text of the Crain's piece (I might be mistaken). It just reads like an insider's puff-piece to me, but I am probably taking a more cynical view than others would. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BLP, and almost seems WP:Crystaly. The reference and claim to notability seem to be implying possible future notability, but not enough current notability for Wikipedia. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 00:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media references and appearances arise almost exclusively out of a single episode, a nightmare interview with Holly Hunter. The rest of the article (even as pared back) is pretty much just padding. JohnInDC (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Merry speak at Baylor University and her bio as a business woman is legit. She built the Learning Annex, has released 15 albums and played professionally since age 14, owns GetInterns.com, GodsSocialNetwork.com, TeenChristianNetwork.com and I've seen her a number of times on Fox Business. She's also a Governor of the Recording Academy/Grammys.

Here are some articles: http://mycrains.crainsnewyork.com/40under40/profiles/2007/10025 It's a VERY legit list to make and she's on it for taking Learning Annex from $3 million to $100 million in less than 3 years. http://awarenessmogul.com/what-you-can-learn-from-harpist-merry-miller http://www.divatoolbox.com/diva-toolbox-radio-/2009/1732-diva-toolbox-interviews-merry-miller.html http://blogs.nbcsports.com/home/archives/2007/08/its-buzzness-time.html http://www.grammy365.com/chapters/texas-chapter http://www.harpmusictogo.com/ http://www.babymusictogo.com/merrymiller.php http://www.getinterns.com/about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richsue (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - the foregoing, from a newly-created account with a single edit (here), is all excerpted from earlier versions of the article. JohnInDC (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of those are promotional sites managed by her or related to her. A lot of the rest appear to be puff pieces, probably arranged by her agent. The NBC Sports one is a blog post by one of her friends. Have a browse of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I picked one at random - http://www.divatoolbox.com/diva-toolbox-radio-/2009/1732-diva-toolbox-interviews-merry-miller.html That's an INTERVIEW? It SAYS it's an interview. No-one asks a question and she isn't quoted as saying anything at all. It's a pure plug for her CDs. It calls her "world renowned". Never having heard of her, I looked at the content given for the said CDs. I could instantly see why I'd never heard of her. Picked another http://www.grammy365.com/chapters/texas-chapter OK, she's a governor of a chapter of the Texas Chapter of The Recording Academy. There are 29 others too (and an Advisor called "John Tucker (a.k.a. Dr. Teeth)" - just thought you might like to know...). OK - try three. http://www.babymusictogo.com/merrymiller.php "Listen and Buy Now" it says near the top. Having said this, I do have an admiration for people who play the harp (especially someone I used to know who not only played and sang at the same time, but had even built the damn thing himself...) as I have never got nearer to qualifying for Heaven's Orchestra than the pocket zither and the 8 string lyre. This is currently a neutral comment - I'm reserving my !vote to see what happens. I must say I'm not happy about the apparent 'intervention' by someone claiming to be of the legal profession in the editing of the article. That never goes down well at Wikipedia. Oh, before I go - I found this on the diva-toolbox place under 'Submit An Article'. "Please consider submitting articles to the site both from a personal and professional level." And "Your articles should be the kind of advice and information you would share with your sister or best girlfriend across the kitchen table over a cup of tea or glass of wine. Your business experience can inspire and help other women business owners succeed. Sharing your personal experience will help another woman through a difficult time or give her a great idea." (Copied and pasted - and I hope it's counted as fair use to quote.) Peridon (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with half a brain in business knows you don't make Crain's NY "40 Under 40" without having SUBSTANTIAL success in business. She did. And anyone in NYC knows the Learning Annex. Her albums have been all over TV, sold in stores, I've heard them on radio and I don't think anyone mature or legit would comment to her being a Governor of the Recording Academy with "big deal - there's 26 of them..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richsue (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)— Richsue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to show that she's notable with coverage in respected sources. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite obvious "Wenttomowameadow" that you're simply a 'hater'. But bravo that you don't watch TV or you would've seen her either playing harp or talking business. If you ever get invited to the Grammys go meet her, you might like her. She was surprisingly lovely when she spoke to our class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.210.175 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again, please provide reliable third party sources to support your claims and we can all go home as the requirements for a stand alone article will have been met. Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's a governor of the Texas Chapter of the Academy - not of the central body. One of 30 - I said 29 others - governors of a chapter of which there are more. Records - there's a lot of records that aren't notable. A load of collections of 'easy listening' that sell to people who don't really listen but just want a comforting sound there. Fair enough - I've nothing against people making these records so long as somebody buys them (and I don't have to listen to them...). I don't know if this is the category here - but the apparent contents suggests background 'easy listening' to me. Being all over TV simply means someone's plugging them. I don't watch TV either - but if I did I still wouldn't have seen her. "And anyone in NYC knows the Learning Annex." Is this the New York Wikipedia or the English language Wikipedia? I live in the UK and I don't know what it is. Notability is more than everyone in New York knowing something - it's coverage that proves it to us poor benighted heathens that wouldn't live in New York if you offered us the chance. (I wouldn't live in London, either, for the record.) Peridon (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like you Peridon! She's most famous for baby music - LOTS of it. Then Classical (Gary Levinson of NY Philharmonic and Dallas Symphony) then easy listening. True Learning Annex isn't known around the world as many multimillion dollar companies are only known in their cities or country. But aside, she did run and help build it when it went from $3 million to over $100 million in less than three years, hence the Crain's 40 Under 40 and Elle magazine "intelligent" lists. As for TV, kudos to you for not watching! She covers business and music on Fox Business and Fox.com but her plays harp on lots of networks. Anyway, she gave our university class a nice handout with leads and contact info for jobs and took questions and answers on building brands for over 2 hours THEN took us 15 of us out to dinner with our professor! Beyond the call of a duty! Enjoy England!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.210.175 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NWF Kids Pro Wrestling: The Untold Story[edit]

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

Non-notable vanity project. It has won some awards, but they do not seem especially significant ones, and there is no reliable independent coverage. Also, one of a number of related vanity pages created by the same person, so seems worth some scrutiny at AfD regardless. Korruski^Talk 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is weak due to the film's target audience... but I will note though that for its genre, it has more awards than just "some", and for a specialized documentary about youth wrestling that fact is surprising. Even weak notability is still none-the-less, notability.... and as small-budget independent documetaries never have the distribution and press of the big budget studio blockbusters, we look instead to what the film is, and what organization felt it was worth awarding, and why. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I must admit I'm not 100% sure on this one myself. However, I looked a bit more closely at the awards, and I have to say it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition. It is this that makes me question the worth of the awards, on their own, for demonstrating notability.--Korruski^Talk 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... and I did not jump to "keep", as more research is needed, and awards are simply one of the criteria I am looking at. And while the Tellys do not have quite the same industry coverage as the Academy Awards certainly, they do have some decent and sourcable history and coverage of their own.[98] I am okay with the Acolade Competition [99] for its own coverage,[100] and the Aegis Video & Film Production Awards [101] for its history.[102] But I'd love to find some actual coverage beyond the praise from the Dove Foundation. I'll grant it felt a little ironic when you wrote "it seems as if dozens of films are given an award each year, in categories so specific that it seems there cannot be much competition", as you could have easily been describing the Oscars or Golden Globes. But no matter which one you look at... Oscars, Golden Globes, Aegis, Accolades, Tellys, etc... the competition now-a-days is pretty stiff. I'd like to find some decent reviews to help me nudge to a keep or weak keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Competition for Telly awards is anything but stiff. According to the article, "18 to 25 percent [of entries] receive the Bronze Telly Award". (That's somewhere between 2000 and 3000 films a year, more or less.) Zetawoof (ζ) 08:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The DVD appears to be available through Netflix [103] and as for independent reviews I found The notable School Library Journal [104] with the review located at the bottom of the page. Here is yet another independent review from Two Sheds [105] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.174.67 (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have a look at the criteria at WP:FILMNOT. The minor awards and trivial coverage afforded this film clearly do not meet the high WP standards for film notability. Also be aware that this is part of a WP:WG of related articles created by a WP:SPA to proliferate WP:SPAM on the project. The other articles are also up for deletion. [106][107] In all three AfDs thus far, the only voice voting keep has come from an anonymous ISP that geolocates to the subject's hometown, thus perpetuating the WP:COI that led to the creation of the three articles in the first place. Qworty (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those other articles have their own problems certainly, but as they all now belong to Wikipedia, we discuss each on its own individual merits or flaws. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by how these articles "belong" to Wikipedia, but otherwise you're missing the point. It's not about the individual merit of each article. Qworty is suggesting that a person or persons with a conflict of interest have created this batch of articles and are trying to keep them on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Unsure for now~~[see below] Unlike Crossen and his book, this might (and I say might) be notable via the awards. Some of you seem to have more energy in this direction so I'd like to hear more about what you've found (about the awards themselves especially i.e. are they merely "mutual admiration society" vanity awards?). EEng (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All film awards, from such as the Oscars (voted on by members of the not independent Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences themselves) to Golden Globes (voted on by the independent Hollywood Foreign Press Association), can all in some sense be seen as vanity and back-slapping mutual admiration (chuckle)... but we judge their notability through the coverage each has, as there has never been any other standard established to define what is a major award or how it might be itself notable.[108] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote above that I was hoping for something more that just the Dove Foundation review... and abetted by the awards, the additional found reviews from School Library Journal [109] and Two Sheds [110] push it just over the edge for me for this independent documentary film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 29 January 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, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no substantial coverage from secondary sources or national critics. As for the minor awards, WP:FILMNOT is pretty clear on this in a footnote: "This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion." So without satisfying the first criterion of substantial coverage, it's not notable enough for its own article. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Substantial" is not a criteria, "significant" is. "National critics" is not a criteria, only an attribute set to encourage the search for "significant" (not substantial) coverage. So to politely disagree with your statement, there IS significant coverage from secondary sources: the reviews from the Dove Foundation, the School Library Journal and Two Sheds. That's three. Guideline does not mandate there be dozens. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Dove Foundation, School Library Journal and Two Sheds aren't significant. Particularly Two Sheds. That's just some nickname of a dude who was given a DVD by Shawn Crossen and did a really short review. That's not significant at all. As for the School Library Journal, that's not significant either. Per WP:FILMNOT, trivial coverage is excluded: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide." The School Library Journal listing is a capsule review within a listing of school library materials. That leaves the non-profit Dove Foundation, but the site is primarily geared towards selling videos, so it's certainly not an objective, reliable source of film criticism. If there was one reliable source, then maybe the article would be notable, but there aren't any. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting in how Jtalledo simply sums up "Two Sheds" as a nickmane for some dude who was given a DVD to review. Crossen's DVD is about "professional wrestling", and that "some dude" has a very strong reputable website that has reviewed several other wrestling related products, his reviews get picked up by several hundred wrestling websites making the viewership over the internet pretty extensive. Oh, and by the way, Two Sheds is located in the United Kingdom. So Crossen's products have been noticed and/or covered worldwide. Crossen's book and DVD are not blockbuster releases, nor do they have studio budgets, and the genre and target audience is not widespread. So for you to assume that the only way to be "notable" is for his products to be reviewed by major media outlets such as the New York Times is being pretty selective. I can find countless other articles on wikipedia that do not meet this high of a standard as far as being considered notable yet they are not questioned at all. I also think its interesting in how you spin that Mr. Crossen just gave his DVD to Two Sheds to be reviewed, much like in how Paramount Pictures just gives their latest DVD release review copies to the New York Times or Entertainment Weekly for review purposes. But its all right for the big studios because they are dealing directly with a "notable" source, right? A "notable" source with whom they also happen to advertise with in those same publications? Hmmm, now that makes a nice marriage now doesn't it? --97.83.174.67 (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Jtalledo (though, trust me, I've been following this and related debates much more in-depth than is apparent here). EEng (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Keep~~' [Repeated recommendation from same IP] Disagree with Jtalledo (trust me, I have been following this even more than both of them). Jtalledo says that the Dove Foundation is not notable because its geared to primarily sell videos? Really? That's not what the Wikipedia page says about them here: The Dove Foundation - "The Dove Foundation is a registered United States non-profit organization based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, known for its activities of rating, reviewing and endorsing films, and for campaigning against the portrayal of sexual activity and violence in Hollywood films." And as for the School Library Journal - "School Library Journal is a monthly publication with articles and reviews for school and public librarians who work with young people." Hmmm, they both sound pretty notable and reputable to me. And if they don't count for the reviews and endorsements on Mr. Crossens material, then how could they possibly both be notable enough to each have their own wikipedia page right here on this very site? Now that is an interesting question now isn't it. As for the Dove Foundation, the Key word there is "Non-Profit" so for Jtalledo to claim their main objective is to "sell videos" he is really sounding very ignorant to the facts. And I should point out that The Dove Foundation never listed Crossen's material "for sale" on their site, only the endorsement. In the words of Lawrence O'Donnell - "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're NOT entitled to your own facts." You people have to STOP spinning everything to sound good for your point of view like some bad politician does on the campaign trail. The bottom line here is while the sources may be "weakly notable", they are in fact nevertheless, notable. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article on Dove Foundation goes on to say

It is also notable for its telemarketing and violation of the Missouri Do-Not-Call Implementation Act.....Dove's web site states that...Dove's non-profit status eliminates commercial pressure as a factor in its reviews. However, the Dove Foundation's association with Feature Films for Families raises doubts about their freedom from influence by profit motives.

This is from the very article you were quoting -- it's as if you're not setting yourself up for ridicule on purpose. I believed you when you said you were a newspaper reporter [111] but it's getting harder to believe -- for example, you've been participating in several of these discussions for about a week and you're still talking about "notable sources." Reliability, not notability, is the question applied to sources; notability is the question about the subject of the article. Please try to keep those two things straight. EEng (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it do you? It's called disagreeing with you. I simply disagree with your opinion on what is notable and what is not. Just because you say it is not, does not make it definitive. It's only your opinion. And whether you like it or not, while you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine. I'm sorry if you have a hard time believing me just because I happen to disagree with you. But fortunately we still have the right to disagree in this country and on this site. I believed you when you said to give wikipedia another chance, but now I am having second thoughts on believing you. While you bring up a moot point regarding The Dove Foundation's association with Feature Films for Families, you completely ignore my valid point for how they can be considered a "notable" organization on wikipedia, if the reviews they do are "not" notable as you are stating in this discussion. --97.83.174.67 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're bringing up a separate issue that MichaelQSchmidt alluded to in a different context. Whether the Dove Foundation deserves an article on Wikipedia is not pertinent to this deletion discussion. Here's a related example: The National Enquirer and Weekly World News also have articles, but they aren't reliable sources for articles on news events. What is important is if The Dove Foundation a reliable source for this article that we're discussing. And since their website that is being used as a reference is focused on selling the product rather than objectively reviewing it, they're not a reliable source at all. The fact that they're non-profit has nothing to do with it. They still want to sell the product whether they profit from it or not, so obviously they have a conflict of interest.

And the fact that the mention in the School Library Journal is an example of trivial coverage in WP:FILMNOT also stands. TwoSheds is not a reliable source either. There are hundreds of wrestling websites and WP:PW/SG doesn't list them as a recommended resource. We're not here to argue about the processes by which studios give out films to review either.

And folks, might I suggest avoiding the personal attacks? I know that debates can get heated, but I take high offense to being called "ignorant", especially when I made no such attacks towards you. Thanks. :D --Jtalledo (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Better Business Bureau, in its attempts to determine whether the Dove Foundation actually constitutes a charity and therefore deserves non-profit status, has this to say about stonewalling from the organization on this and other issues: "failure to participate may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency. Without the requested information, the Alliance cannot determine if this charity adheres to the Standards for Charity Accountability" [112]. The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance attempts to ascertain which charities really are charities, rather than for-profit organizations, so that people can determine whether or not they'd care to make a donation. The relevance here is that Shawn Crossen is a vanity-press author, which means that he is willing to open his checkbook at any time and pay others in an attempt to purchase notability. Since we cannot determine how the Dove Foundation handles revenue flows, we have no idea if they are in the business of selling review space to authors who are willing to pay for attention. Since there is a huge cloud over this source, I think there are enough red flags for us not to consider it as WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the same ip has placed comments out of order and broken the header. I have moved them below.--Korruski^Talk 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP... The documentry was featured at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, I do believe the festival is the largest.The IFQ Independent Film Qourterly "Cannes Special Edition" Issue number 11 may 2006 page 48 features the NWF kids pro wrestling Documentary. I would think even being part of Cannes is big and then to be featured in a magazine covering Cannes has some merit.I searched on Wikipedia for the New York international Independent Film and Video Festival to see if they were on Wikipedia and they are. Mr. Crossen documentry won best sports documentry in 2005 at the screening. I would think that Wikipedia have standards and that is why this film festival has a page on Wikipedia. Gene 93K I do believe that the two festivals have merit and may shed some additional light on why the documentary should be on Wikipedia. We all have to take into consideration that this league was produced and marketed by kids. This was aired on cable television to a National audience, they had sold out arenas, that in itself is amazing. The two kids that were responsible for the birth of this Crossen and Lane in there time were pioneers of something that we may never see again. I also need to mention that this documentary is available for rental on Netflix, I would think Netflix has standards as well— 96.60.131.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No mention at online version, anyway, of IFQ Issue 11 [113]. Meanwhile, looked everywhere and can't find any link between Cannes and Crossen/Wrestling/Kids or anything else, in particular no mention at [114], nor at [115] that I can see. EEng (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it has screened at multiple festivals over several years, might we not assume good faith in offline content, specially as not all hardcopy sources reproduce themselves in their entirety when sharing their online archives? And after its 2005 win in New York as "Best Sports Documentary", it screened at NYIIFVF (Los Angeles) and won the 2006 ScreenCraft Award for “Best Documentary”... and it does have those Telly, Accolade, and Aegis Awards, as well as distribution. Not all awards are the Oscars, but these others have enough coverage themselves AS awards for them to be seen as "well-known and significant" enough to matter. Sure it's not a big budget studio promoted film franchise like Star Wars, but does every independent genre film have to be? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 8 February 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.