< 19 February	21 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Sanctum[edit]

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

Band does not meet notability guidelines per WP:BAND; there is no discernible coverage or evidence of prominence at any level, and no album has yet been released. Signing with a major label--and there are, incidentally, no sources to verify this claim--does not in itself satisfy criteria. JNW (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JNW. I wish the group every success but it's too soon for an article on Wikipedia yet. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:53, 7 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 13 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sources, and they'd need two releases under Atlantic to auto-qualify under WP:BAND. Melchoir (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliabl sources. No albums released yet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 23 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Stephen (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Nguyen[edit]

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

Autobiographical, no indication of significance BurtAlert (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- No indication of notability whatsoever. Tagged as A7. ... discospinster _talk 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Honestly, I agree. I just didn't want to tag it for speedy delete and then be wrong :) BurtAlert (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too lazy to speedy it myself, but discospinster is right. Melchoir (talk) 02:42, 21 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. J04n(talk page) 01:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hashmi[edit]

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

nothing to suggest this man passes WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. While the winning of a state singing competition may be notable, it is not only unverified (and personally, I can't find any sources) but lacks any indication as to how prestigious the award actually is. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A 10 day delete was proposed on 14 Feb on the grounds of no BLP references; since then no viable, or any, references have been proffered. This first delete template was removed by the article’s creator on 20 Feb, after adding a non-inline link to the subject’s own web site that had no evidence to back-up any claim. A swathe of copy-and-paste vio on 20 Feb, that appeared intended to aggrandize the subject by replacing his name into another’s text, obviously could not be referenced, and was removed. The article still gives the sound of importance but - at present - provides absolutely nothing to support its assertions. Emperor’s new clothes. Acabashi (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: I couldn't find sources either. May become notable in the future if the "upcoming album" is released and attracts press attention. Melchoir (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following a good analysis by Acabashi, et al. No apparent notability, just potential. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:13, 21 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 under WP:A10. Airplaneman ✈ 07:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democratic senators[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a necessary article. It is just a copy of the list of current United States Senators cut to only include Democrats and is not needed. Aaaccc (talk), 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete Notable topic but the information is already given in other lists here. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary content fork of List of current United States Senators. Carrite (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for half of another list to have its own page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Melchoir (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A10; article duplicates information already found in List of current United States senators and the title is not a plausible redirect. I say this because the term "Democratic senator" is ambiguous in the sense that it is not unique to the United States and, depending on one's interpretation, can even be construed as redundant. If A10 is not satisfied my !vote will default to regular delete per the same reasoning. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:20, 21 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 Deleted under G4. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Joseph Radke[edit]

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

Contested prod ([1]); courtesy nom for User:D33deed33guy. Thinly-sourced article about the former singer of a presumably notable band, but doesn't appear notable in himself; we are told that he may release an album with a new band in 2011, but that seems inadmissable as a basis for notability uinder WP:CRYSTAL. Propose we delete or delete & redirect. Ronnie Radke, the exact same guy, already redirects to his former band, and WP:BAND confirms that this is standard practice ("members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band"). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is both a page for Ronnie Radke and Ronald Joseph Radke. Same guy, just different ways of naming it so he can have his own article. Only contributors are fans who made accounts on wikipedia just to promote him. He has no real significance as himself so I recommended that both Ronnie Radke and Ronald Joseph Radke be locked as redirect pages to Escape the Fate to prevent any future editing until he establishes proper noteworthiness. --Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 20:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero news coverage. FurrySings (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's just factually incorrect. He has received news coverage, partly for his musical career, mostly for his legal issues. !voting like that which disregards that truth of the matter is not worth making. Fences&Windows 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the following, some behind paywalls: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. I'm not saying we can construct a biography independent of the band, but sources do cover him. Fences&Windows 21:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think we can consruct a decent BLP with the sources found by FencesandWindows. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fences and windows may have provided sources, but they all refer to his involvement in an event that is not even notable enough for its own article. (Other than the first source, however, they are all valid, reliable 3rd party references; the first is a blog.) The event in question is a fatal beating in which he was charged with battery; his conviction resulted in a fine of USD$90,000 and he left the band as a result. This should be mentioned in the band article (Escape the Fate) to explain why he left, but he is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article in his own right. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah there are some sources but mostly involving legal troubles which have little significance. For his music career, the majority of it links to Escape the Fate, a band that kicked him out before they reached the mainstream radio world. His new band isn't notable and had little importance. I vote delete--Wassup!!-D33DeeD33Guy...R.I.P. Dad 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to itunes Radke's album is escape the fates top album, He will be releasing a new album in early 2011, and has had many interviews and fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newburro (talk • contribs) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) — Newburro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article has previously been discussed at AfD under a different title. See [9]. It may be elegible for speedy deletion under G4. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since noting the above I have noticed that it has also been discussed twice at DRV. So I don't think there is any need to waste more time here and I have deleted under G4. This should go through DRV before recreation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 25 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. CSD G11 Blatant advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr nawal[edit]

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

Blatant advertising. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might qualify for speedy delete under CSD G11, although there is an assertion in the article that she won an award in Qatar which might constitute a claim of notability. Anyway, my searches found only the most minimal results[10], and there aren't any independent sources in the article other than the award, which does not appear to be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, db-spam; notability is irrelevant to whether a page is spam or not. Hairhorn (talk) 03:17, 21 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. Nominator was only one advocating for deletion. General consensus to keep, but merge discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cribbage (rules)[edit]

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

Contested prod, for the reason of the article supposedly being a legitimate split from the main Cribbage article. However, I see this as a HOWTO and a fork that does not need to exist - the reason the article is so large (with 6 sources) is because there are multiple hands' worth of graphic "examples": example plays, example cribs, and example scores, which have nothing to do with stating the rules of the game; examples are for showing how to do something and therefore violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. The rules of cribbage are fundamental to the game, and they should be in the main article, not split out with unencyclopedic filler. MSJapan (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a few of the details back to Cribbage and delete the rest (especially that blue-purple-orange color scheme). I agree that this was an unnecessary fork; the main article isn't very long. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's an overly narrow interpretation of HOWTO that would exclude simple, sourced examples describing the play of an unquestionably notable game. I don't object to merging this back into the main cribbage article, but part of writing about a simple game necessarily includes rules explanations, and these aren't particularly over-the-top. If someone wanted to post an entire turn of Third Reich, however, I'd nuke that from orbit! :-) Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of examples shouldn't be the issue; for example we have Rules of chess, Rules of Go, Singaporean Mahjong scoring rules, Japanese Mahjong scoring rules with a greater or lesser amount of graphic examples. Articles on mathematics and programming languages also have space-consuming examples. You can reasonably argue that the examples in this article are too numerous or badly presented, but I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that their mere presence is a problem. Melchoir (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several issues with the Cribbage pages in conjunction which perhaps warrants a major merge and may affect the purpose of this page. The main cribbage page does not explain how to score 'the show. Cribbage Solitaire, Cribbage Square Solitaire, CrossCribb and Kings Cribbage don't really warrant a separate page so perhaps the rules should include all of the variants. Cribbage statistics while thorough as described do not have a bearing on the play in the way that it does in poker or bridge, similarly there is a Cribbage (strategy) page. Also some of the information currently presented on the page needs some clarification.Tetron76 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course the rules of a game that has been widely played for hundreds of years belong in a comprehensive encyclopedia, however anyone tries to try to shoehorn this into failing the letter of some policy. The only question is whether this should be a separate article or a section of the main cribbage article, which is not a matter for AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He who ignores the agenda and unstoppable power of the deletion army does so at his peril. They've been going for other games' mechanics for years. You weren't much help then. Then sports players & martial arts, and now...Anyone for Category:Tennis shots?

Comment - Normally I would agree with you, except for the fact that this material is already in the main article (where it should be) and was forked out for no apparent reason I can locate, other than to let somebody (singular) talk about how to play the game and postulate ridiculous "examples" that have no place in the articles. Literature (card game) doesn't have play examples, nor does Patience (game), nor does Backgamoon, although they all indicate the rules of the game. Removing the examples without some sort of consensus, therefore, will likely lead to an edit war, and redirecting will likely do the same. So, community consensus to do something is essential to resolving the issue. I would prefer to see it deleted, and therefore I sent it to AfD. The rest is up to other people. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Category:Tennis shots, Category:Tennis terminology, Category:Golf terminology, Category:Chess openings, Category:Bridge squeezes, all of which prove that WP:GAMEGUIDE is WP:CREEP.

I changed some of the more, imo, jarring Jawbreaker / Gobstopper candy colors to 'Shades of beize'. I left some of them, as a comparison. Anarchangel (talk) 22:50, 26 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 Blink-182#Reformation (2009–present). (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blink-182's sixth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Blink-182's sixth studio album

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "WP:HAMMER. No title, track listing, or release date for this album have been announced. The verifiable information on its recording is already present at Blink-182#Reformation (2009–present)." I still stand by that. This whole thing was ripped straight from the artist article, and it's too soon for an article on an album that has no title, track listing, or release date. IllaZilla (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blink-182#Reformation (2009–present). There are enough references, so this doesn't seem like a matter for AfD. Melchoir (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire content was copied from that very section. It could be restored simply by going back to the history. That's my point, that this was a premature split of a topic that's not ready for a separate article, and that was simply ripped from the main article where it was already well-covered. Redirecting would just be creating a loop: the thing to do IMO is to delete the new article & restore the content to the main article by simply recovering it from the history. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have left notices on the talk pages of the 4 editors (other than myself) who commented on the proposed deletion at the article's talk page, informing them that the article is now at AfD and that they are invited to participate in this discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Nothing new here. No need for a separate article, this material rightly belongs in the main Blink 182 article. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No confirmation of album's name, track listing, producers, etc. Strikerforce (talk) 05:32, 27 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. J04n(talk page) 01:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Bumper - Jungle[edit]

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

Very few references, doesn't warrant an individual article imo TehMissingLink ^Talk 18:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantial coverage by reliable sources shows up, which seems somewhat unlikely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Nickcruft for several ten second promos that certainly doesn't need an article. Could be just as easily speedily deleted. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't match any of the criteria, no, it can't. AfD is fast enough. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I looked for references on "Nickelodeon bumpers" and didn't find anything worthwhile. Melchoir (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In fact it's borderline for speedy deletion (no context). JamesBWatson (talk) 14:40, 25 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. Consensus seems fairly clear. if there is a problem with its status as a content fork, that is something which should first be addressed through editing and then through deletion. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acupuncture point[edit]

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

Clear WP:CONTENTFORK - There is not any content that should be in acupuncture point that should not already be in acupuncture. The article has no basis for independent existence and should be

Merged and redirected to acupuncture. There is already a place for minute details about points, List of acupuncture points.

Per WP:CONTENTFORK, if you have specific content that should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture, please provide it, and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider any "keep" vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
There are several problems to this approach. First, as you admit, "acupuncture" is alternative medicine, which may not agree with science. Thus, arguing that sources do not agree with WP:MEDRS is fallacious. Second, you have basically deleted the whole article before bringing it up for AfD, which is not only misleading but more so deceptive. Third, you have deleted statements that have been sourced with peer-reviewed journals such as Hindawi. Sorry, but your case is a simple "I don't like it". Nageh (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Furthermore, before your deceptive deletion of most of the content there was sufficient material that was not in the acupuncture article. Our policies explicitly state that should an article become too long it should be split. Nageh (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please apologize for accusing me being "deceptive", which is synonymous with bad faith. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Did I say "you are deceptive"? Would you please stay to the facts instead of turning around what I said, just as below? Your behavior was deceptive, whether intentional or not. Because with the little content there was left after your mass deletion a merge or redirect was obvious, whereas before it was definitely not. Nageh (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Your behavior here is offensive, Nageh. Rather than assuming bad faith and playing the man, why don't you address the point that the onus is on those defending dubious biomedical claims to find reliable sources for those claims? That is, do some reading, do some work, don't just fling offensive shit around. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Nageh apologized... and more, sincerely reconsidered and changed his vote! :) PPdd (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

There are several problems to this approach. First, as you admit, "acupuncture" is alternative medicine, which may not agree with science. Thus, arguing that sources do not agree with WP:MEDRS is fallacious. Second, you have basically deleted the whole article before bringing it up for AfD, which is not only misleading but more so deceptive. Third, you have deleted statements that have been sourced with peer-reviewed journals such as Hindawi. Sorry, but your case is a simple "I don't like it". Nageh (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, before your deceptive deletion of most of the content there was sufficient material that was not in the acupuncture article. Our policies explicitly state that should an article become too long it should be split. Nageh (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please apologize for accusing me being "deceptive", which is synonymous with bad faith. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "you are deceptive"? Would you please stay to the facts instead of turning around what I said, just as below? Your behavior was deceptive, whether intentional or not. Because with the little content there was left after your mass deletion a merge or redirect was obvious, whereas before it was definitely not. Nageh (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior here is offensive, Nageh. Rather than assuming bad faith and playing the man, why don't you address the point that the onus is on those defending dubious biomedical claims to find reliable sources for those claims? That is, do some reading, do some work, don't just fling offensive shit around. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nageh apologized... and more, sincerely reconsidered and changed his vote! :) PPdd (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree. The main article and List of acupuncture points have this covered already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Pretty clear choice - and probably could have been done as WP:BOLD without an AfD, since the whole point (pun intended) of acupuncture is just that. First Light (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Comment - Try to WP:Bold anything which could be even be slightly argued against, in a pseudoscience article, and its edit war time. PPdd (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I thought this was pretty bold. But I agree with it. All you seem to have done is remove unsourced assertion and stuff that is covered elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] It was actually pretty timid. What I actually did was come to acupunctre point expecting to find content that should also be in acupuncture, where I have been adding huge amounts of RS content and MEDRS sources. As you can see from this[11], each time I came across a WP:MEDRS statement, or a NRS statement, I deleted it, knowing how the identical statement was treated by consensus at acupuncture. You can see that I spent time considering the line of text, and gave it an individualized edit summary, step by step, timid as a mouse. When I was done, there was nothing left, and I realized the acupuncture point article had no basis for independent existence from acupuncture. Then, instead of WP:boldly doing a redirect, I timidly put it here for public consideration. So maybe I am too timid. :) PPdd (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment - Try to WP:Bold anything which could be even be slightly argued against, in a pseudoscience article, and its edit war time. PPdd (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was pretty bold. But I agree with it. All you seem to have done is remove unsourced assertion and stuff that is covered elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually pretty timid. What I actually did was come to acupunctre point expecting to find content that should also be in acupuncture, where I have been adding huge amounts of RS content and MEDRS sources. As you can see from this[11], each time I came across a WP:MEDRS statement, or a NRS statement, I deleted it, knowing how the identical statement was treated by consensus at acupuncture. You can see that I spent time considering the line of text, and gave it an individualized edit summary, step by step, timid as a mouse. When I was done, there was nothing left, and I realized the acupuncture point article had no basis for independent existence from acupuncture. Then, instead of WP:boldly doing a redirect, I timidly put it here for public consideration. So maybe I am too timid. :) PPdd (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds about right, especially since List of acupuncture points already exists. Melchoir (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep WP:AFD states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The nominator should please not bring every bold edit he wishes to make to AFD. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden, your comment is completely nonresponsive to the 2 reasons stated above to redirect. WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, and trying to circumvent consensus on a delete by NRS or NMEDRS at acupuncture, by simply copying ans pasting to acupuncture point, as clearly happened by identical sentences, violates not only MEDRS and RS, but CONSENSUS. Also see my reply to Anthonycole above, and Nageh below. Please apologize for your personal attack calling me a "butcher", as it is uncivil and violates WP:Etiquette. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate section of Acupuncture. No point in saying the same stuff twice. Colonal Warden, per PPdd, if the appropriate section at Acupuncture becomes too big, then is the time to create a sub-article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed for 7 years and was quite substantial until recently. PPdd has butchered most of the content and now seeks to delete its history while it is a mutilated state. He seems to believe that cut/paste copies are acceptable in such cases but they are not. I shall now revert this butchery so that editors may fully understand what is being proposed here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you watch your tone please? PPdd is a serious, neutral, good-faith editor. Restoring unsourced and poorly sourced biomedical claims in any article is grossly irresponsible. If you think any of the deleted content should be in the encyclopedia, the onus is on you to provide appropriate sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Redirect to main article following discussion. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Challenging material does NOT mean that you should delete everything from an article down to its bones and then bring it to AfD. In fact, WP:V says that material must be verifiable, which does not imply that it must be verified. This is not an WP:BLP article, and the behavior of User:PPdd is exactly the reason why real contributors (those adding content) get pissed off from Wikipedia. Yes, not sourcing something is not good behavior based on our policies and guidelines, but if you delete something you should have a reason for deletion. Also read WP:Responsible tagging, which tangents this issue. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you don't agree with the existence of acupuncture points this is your problem. Add controversy to the article but don't delete just because you don't like it. Nageh (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] An [[WP:C90=yes; hidesnmessage=1; centraln no way responds to the two reasons for redirecting given above. As it stood, the acupuncture point article was being used as a vehicle to avoid RS, MEDRS, and BURDEN policies and guidelines, by moving a deleted by consensus edit as NMEDRS at the acupuncture article, to the less watched acupuncture point article, which has no independent justification for existence except a means of circumventing consensus. Saying I am not a "real contributor" not only violates WP:Etiquette, it is a flat out false misrepresentation of my contribution history, where over 90% of my edits have been adding content, or adding RS without regard to the POV of the line I am providing citation for. Also, any edit I make is stepwise, with each step having a specific edit summary, as demonstrated in my reply to Anthonycole above. I do not recall ever being in an edit war, or of having been accused of coming close to edit warring. My NPOV editing history at alt med articles is clear as in the highly edit war prone homeopathy-related pseudoscience article anthroposophical medicine, where after my many edits I got these unsolicited comments from both edit-warring POV sides[12], resulting in this[13], and the article has been unchanged ever since[14]. Furthermore, I was accused recently of putting too many "citation needed" tags, and WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, as per my reply to Colonel Warden above. Nageh, please apologize. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I did not accuse you of not being a "real contributor", I was criticizing your behavior. Anyway, if you felt this to be an uncivil attack on you, this was not intended, and I apologize for this. I am just seeing it too often lately that people are deleting simply because something was unreferenced. In addition, what set me up was that you deleted statements that were referenced with peer-reviewed sources. The way I see it is that acupuncture points discusses the traditional Eastern model of acupuncture and not the Western world science aspects. As such, arguing with WP:MEDRS does not imply, IMO. What you may ask is whether a discussion of these traditional thoughts are notable and should be kept or not and be brought up for deletion. But this should be done before almost all content gets deleted. Hope this clarifies the issue. (So maybe you can explain why the previous content was not notable?) Nageh (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] I gave an edit summary for each deletion, so I would need to know which deletion you are talking about to reply, but you should bring it up at the talk page, not here, and I will reply there. I only came to the acupuncture point article looking for more content that I might add to acupuncture. I found no content whatsoever that was not already at acupuncture, and only broght it here, instead of a bold redirect, to have participation, if I might be missing something about why content might be at acupuncture point and not at acupuncture. MEDRS certainly does apply, especially as there are reports of medical sutdies. I started deleting things that had already been deleted by consensus at acupuncture, or had no sources at all. I made no distinction as to the POV of the unsourcded edit, but itemized the edit summaries. You should reconsider your opposition to redirecting, unless you have a particular edit in mind that should not be in acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)I think we can work this out. See talk page of this AfD. Nageh (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Challenging material does NOT mean that you should delete everything from an article down to its bones and then bring it to AfD. In fact, WP:V says that material must be verifiable, which does not imply that it must be verified. This is not an WP:BLP article, and the behavior of User:PPdd is exactly the reason why real contributors (those adding content) get pissed off from Wikipedia. Yes, not sourcing something is not good behavior based on our policies and guidelines, but if you delete something you should have a reason for deletion. Also read WP:Responsible tagging, which tangents this issue. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you don't agree with the existence of acupuncture points this is your problem. Add controversy to the article but don't delete just because you don't like it. Nageh (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An [[WP:C90=yes; hidesnmessage=1; centraln no way responds to the two reasons for redirecting given above.

As it stood, the acupuncture point article was being used as a vehicle to avoid RS, MEDRS, and BURDEN policies and guidelines, by moving a deleted by consensus edit as NMEDRS at the acupuncture article, to the less watched acupuncture point article, which has no independent justification for existence except a means of circumventing consensus.

Saying I am not a "real contributor" not only violates WP:Etiquette, it is a flat out false misrepresentation of my contribution history, where over 90% of my edits have been adding content, or adding RS without regard to the POV of the line I am providing citation for. Also, any edit I make is stepwise, with each step having a specific edit summary, as demonstrated in my reply to Anthonycole above.

I do not recall ever being in an edit war, or of having been accused of coming close to edit warring.

My NPOV editing history at alt med articles is clear as in the highly edit war prone homeopathy-related pseudoscience article anthroposophical medicine, where after my many edits I got these unsolicited comments from both edit-warring POV sides[12], resulting in this[13], and the article has been unchanged ever since[14].

Furthermore, I was accused recently of putting too many "citation needed" tags, and WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, as per my reply to Colonel Warden above.

Nageh, please apologize. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse you of not being a "real contributor", I was criticizing your behavior. Anyway, if you felt this to be an uncivil attack on you, this was not intended, and I apologize for this. I am just seeing it too often lately that people are deleting simply because something was unreferenced. In addition, what set me up was that you deleted statements that were referenced with peer-reviewed sources. The way I see it is that acupuncture points discusses the traditional Eastern model of acupuncture and not the Western world science aspects. As such, arguing with WP:MEDRS does not imply, IMO. What you may ask is whether a discussion of these traditional thoughts are notable and should be kept or not and be brought up for deletion. But this should be done before almost all content gets deleted. Hope this clarifies the issue. (So maybe you can explain why the previous content was not notable?) Nageh (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an edit summary for each deletion, so I would need to know which deletion you are talking about to reply, but you should bring it up at the talk page, not here, and I will reply there. I only came to the acupuncture point article looking for more content that I might add to acupuncture. I found no content whatsoever that was not already at acupuncture, and only broght it here, instead of a bold redirect, to have participation, if I might be missing something about why content might be at acupuncture point and not at acupuncture. MEDRS certainly does apply, especially as there are reports of medical sutdies. I started deleting things that had already been deleted by consensus at acupuncture, or had no sources at all. I made no distinction as to the POV of the unsourcded edit, but itemized the edit summaries. You should reconsider your opposition to redirecting, unless you have a particular edit in mind that should not be in acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think we can work this out. See talk page of this AfD. Nageh (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Blatant WP:CONTENTFORK. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Comment - Note that two editors are reinstated deleted material that was either totally usourced, or already deleted at acupuncture as WP:NRS, nonWP:MEDRS, or overtly POV, and all by clear consensus there, and all in violation of WP:BURDEN. There is no RS or MEDRS content in acupuncture point that is not in acupuncture, or that was not deleted at accupuncture by consensus for violating MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Please assume good faith, just as you are requesting by others. If you could lay out in which way this article is a content fork, where the forked material has been contested as POV on the main article's talk page, and maybe you could answer my questions on the discussion page. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Not only am I assuming good faith, I am assuming one of us will change their votes, or I wouldn't be engagin in so much discussion. Vote pages are filled with my ~~striking out~~ my own vote and changing it to the opposite after discussion, or someone else I am discussing with striking out their own vote. From the first two sentences of WP:CONTENTFORK - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." And I responded to you at this discussion's talk page. PPdd (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] Done. Nageh (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment - Note that two editors are reinstated deleted material that was either totally usourced, or already deleted at acupuncture as WP:NRS, nonWP:MEDRS, or overtly POV, and all by clear consensus there, and all in violation of WP:BURDEN. There is no RS or MEDRS content in acupuncture point that is not in acupuncture, or that was not deleted at accupuncture by consensus for violating MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, just as you are requesting by others. If you could lay out in which way this article is a content fork, where the forked material has been contested as POV on the main article's talk page, and maybe you could answer my questions on the discussion page. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only am I assuming good faith, I am assuming one of us will change their votes, or I wouldn't be engagin in so much discussion. Vote pages are filled with my ~~striking out~~ my own vote and changing it to the opposite after discussion, or someone else I am discussing with striking out their own vote. From the first two sentences of WP:CONTENTFORK - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." And I responded to you at this discussion's talk page. PPdd (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nageh (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems like plausible subtopic under acupuncture. And let's not remove all the content from it please User:PPdd, until after the discussion. I've restored the 90% that you removed. Just because it's an alternative to standard western medicine doesn't mean that wikipedia can't cover it encyclopedically. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaaaaaargh... and after all that time with Nageh.... maybe I shouldn't have collapsed all that stuff above yet. The only reason the article was nominated for deletion is that when it was examined line by line, almost nothing was left in it that was OK by Wiki standards, so I brought it up here to delete the rest and redirect, instead of boldly redirecting it (like I maybe should have). Dicklyon, I know your restoration is in good faith, but please see here[15], and the extensive discussion of everything that was deleted from acupuncture point, discussed in detail on the talk pages of acupuncture. Also check out the collapsed discussions on this page, which were collapsed because they related to the content deleted from the page. Note that Nageh above originally voted to "keep", but after spending much time looking at reasons why to merge, he changed his vote to "redirect". The current content in acupuncture point can not stay in for the various reasons in the links just given, so having an article that appears full and well referenced is misleading, since when examined line by line it ends up looking like what you just reverted. The acupuncture point article is just a hiding place for things that subtly don't meet Wiki standards, and were repeatedly deleted by consensus, as in the archives of Talk:Acupuncture, then got WP:CONTENTFORKed to acupuncture point to hide from watch lists. There is no content in the acupuncture point article that is allowed, and which is not already in acupuncture. And if and after you read all that stuff, please consider changing your "keep" vote to "redirect". PPdd (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this discussion, and am not familiar with the article and its history, but when I look there I see that the article had a substantial size, and a substantial participation of anti-acupucture editors, for over 5 years. So I don't see how you can say it's a hiding place or an improper content fork. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look Dicklyon... I mean "look here[16] Dicklyon", because if you don't look there, you will have to look up and to the south, and if it was not dark out right now you would see a big cubical building silouetted against the sky on top of the Santa Cruz mountains, and to the left of that building across the Sierra Azul at the southern end, you will see a big bunch of antennaes on three peaks that are close to each other, and the middle peak is my land, and its covered with this white fluffy stuff from last night that you normally don't see when you look up, so if you don't look here[17], you will have to look up because I will throw a big snowball at you, and if the snow melts too soon, I will build a giant tessla coil up here and be able to hurl lightning bolts down just like zeus, so heads up... I mean look up, that link. :) PS, I know that it looks like I deleted stuff and then called a straw man vote, but I did not, as explained in the collapsed sections above (above this writing, not above on the mountain top above you). PPdd (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore. Although you'd never guess from the recent state of the article, there are whole books written on this specific subject. 90% of the article content, including 18 sources to scholarly journal articles like PMID 16136210, was removed—IMO incorrectly and even tendentiously—by the nom. Of course it looks like nothing now: PPdd deleted 23,000 bytes of sourced material immediately before nomming this for deletion, and he is now edit warring to keep the information out. I recommend that all the editors look carefully at the article history rather than merely glancing over the shell that PPdd left you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from their comments, I think everybody on this page has read the article history (except for Dicklyon) and has made an informed vote. Please read the collapsed sections of this discussion and the discussion on this AfD's talk page, if you haven't already. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True; I now admit to being thoroughly confused, and am going to stay out of it. Dodging snowballs from Mt. Umunhum or thereabouts. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, you can't stay out since your vote is in. And you can take the snowball and put syrup on it and sell it to someone as a snowcone. And if you keep your edit-contribution historic well-reasoning head in this, I will tell you the story about how I snuck in to that Mt. Umanmum facility, which makes Area 51 look normal, by voluntering to be the pole man for the USGS, who were entering that strange abandoned military facility to do survey work. Talk about surreal! PPdd (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the very first example of what I deleted, a whacked out medical conclusion from a primary source pro-acu study published in a journal that says, -

"Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine."

WhatamIdoing calls this "well sourced" in his edit summary for his WP:BURDEN violating revert. Then he says to me -

"PPdd, you apparently have seriously misunderstood the MEDRS guideline. I suggest that you stop deleting material, from this or any other article."

with no specificiy whatsoever. Then he goes around accusing me of bad faith edit warring and tendentiousness.

WhatamIdoing, please apologize for your etiquette violations in your personal attacks on me. PPdd (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, if this article you want to keep is not clearly WP:CONTENTFORK redundancy, please cite just one RS sentence that should go in to acupuncture point, but should not go in to acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is a huge difference between the acupuncture article, which is mainly about the history of the practice and its origins and how it formed and acupuncture points, which are a specific subject that does not seem to have merely copied information from the higher level article. It is also easily referenced and sufficiently so already. Shame on the nominator for this series of edits. We do not remove sourced information and then take an article to AfD because it is "empty". This is tendentious editing, is pointy, and is in extremely bad faith to the purpose of Wikipedia. Silver seren^C 16:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though the current page is problematic, there are myriad sources on the topic and it would be a good article to expand with details that are only covered in the broadest strokes on the main acupuncture page. Please note the current version with much of the objectionable content removed, a middling rewrite and several new sources added. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, shouldn't there be independent content existing before creating a forked daughter page, per WP:CONTENTFORK, and shouldn't the daughter article only be created after the parent article starts to delete content per WP:UNDUE that could go in the daughter but not the parent? If so, what is it? Otherwise this "daughter article", which entirely duplicates acupuncture, except that it also has things and wording deleted from acupuncture as NRS or POV (exactly what WP:CONTENTFORK exists to stop). PPdd (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should generally follow the rules, but are free to ignore them if it means improving the encyclopedia. I think in this case, we should. It's frankly hard to tell what's in one page versus another anymore given the extremely, I would say overly, bold editing taking place. But acupuncture points is a very good place to delve into the details that we should gloss over in the main acupuncture page. We aren't beholden to any one particular approach regarding parent and daughter pages - we can start with the detailed pages and from there write a more general one, or start with a general page and expand the details in a daughter article. Even if the two articles cite exactly the same sources, that doesn't mean the text that accompanies those sources must be identical.

As for what content should be at acupuncture point and not acupuncture - details. Acupuncture point can go in to much greater detail than the main article can or should. PPdd, though I think your edits were necessary and good, I think this AFD nomination was not. It will probably fail, and I'm actually in favour of that. The article has been thoroughly gutted, and a preliminary skeleton has been established for what could be a very respectable separate page. Perhaps it's time to stop arguing and see what the poor closing admin says. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WLU: Acupuncture should have a ((Main))-tagged WP:SUMMARY of the concept, but limited to just a few paragraphs. The article in question should contain a full, encyclopedic description of acupuncture points, including the different ways that significant sources conceptualize the points, any disagreements over which points are where, and scientific evidence for or against both the concept and the individual claims. The same approach should also be used in Acupressure and other closely connected articles: all of them should summarize and point to this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is best for an AfD discussion to accurately see what an article will look like, not what it appears to be. WLU made well explained, step by step edits[18]. His edits will stick, so the version of the article as he edited it is best for the AfD discussion. PPdd (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Proposed consensus compromise - The only argument to keep is that there is a potential for the article to not violate WP:CONTENTFORK redundancy. The best argument to redirect so far is that it is now completely redundant, and has a very high potential to be a WP:CONTENTFORK violating base camp for POVpushers not satisfied with deletions of their POV and NRS content at acupunture, especially as this has historically been the case. I suggest a compromise to avoid the latter. Keep the artricle up for its potenital not to violate WPCONTENTFORK "redundancy", but set controls for its potential refuge for WPCONTENTFORK POV and NRS abuse from those seeking to avoid deletions on those bases at acupuncture. The control I propse setting is a FAQ at this articles talk page that this article is not to contain claims of efficacy, and if someonee wants to make such claims, they must do so at acupuncture, which is about medical treatment, not points. It is very unlikely that a claim of efficacy related to any acupuncture point allowed in her, will not be allowed at acupuncture. Otherwise, this article seems to be a good one to use as the basic example in the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline, that of an article that is completely redundant, and also of one that has been historically used to put in POV and NRS violating content. PPdd (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Infeasable proposal per WAID comment at talk page[reply]

PPdd, perhaps the best way for you to address this, and address the comments of other editors on the page, is to see if you can improve the page by expanding it rather than deleting or redirecting it. I think your solution is too proscriptive and portrays the issue as settled, while I would characterize the scientific consensus as skeptical, but open to evidence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying, but I can't think of any lieterature I have read that divorces points from acupuncture itself, although theoretically possible to do so as a level of detail. Te first thing that happened when I went to the acupoint article to try to expand it, per your suggestion, was to see at the outset a false and completely NRS sentence, which I deleted, and soon next up is a sentence is a biomed assertion based on a single study published in an acupuncture journal, so should be reworded into a statement about beliefs of the author as to what biomed conclusions should be drawn from the study, and the sentence is better put in the acupuncture article. I do see one study, which found negative results for two meridians, and positive for one meridian, but it only had 28 people in it, a very small sample size, especially in the context of the thousands of subjects and billions of dollars spent in the massive attempt to try to find some effect of acupuncture, however trivial. And all this did was find significance in 28 people for one meridian, but not the other two meridians tested. A different 28 people might easily not have this significance.

In any case, if a "single primary source study with a sample size of 28" is not WP:UNDUE, this same info should also be in the acupuncture article, and I am surprised that it is not already (I have not checked, yet). PPdd (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One possible way I see for this article not to be a flat out WP:CONTENTFORK is illustrated by an analogy between acupuncture-stimulations-points and coin-heads-tails. For any coin, there is usually a head and a tail. It is difficult to divorce the head from the coin. A coin article is about heads and tails. But a daughter article for coins might be "heads", discussing historic head designs of coins, and not tail design. Similarly, the acupuncture article is about stimulation of points, so is about both. Ordinarily for any stimulation, there is a point, and for any point, a stimulation. But theoretically, there could be a discussion of points divorced from stimulation. This would argue for a third article called acupuncture stimulation methods. I think this is a giant stretch, and the most WP:COMMONSENSE attitude is that this article is a pure and simple CFORK, and more, paradigmatically CFORK, but maybe other editors who have more thoroughly read up the literature, like WLU, have ideas I have not thought of and can bring specificity to what I have called "theoretically". In any event, this whole justification for "keep" discussion is theoretical, as the article as it now stands, or as it ever stood, even with the NRS and POV content added back in, is pure CFORK. All there is right now is a theoretical potential to find detailed content that should not go in the acupuncture article, but should go in the acupuncture point or theoretical acupuncture stimulation methods articles. PPdd (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't feel like retreading this same ground. The page will almost certainly not be deleted at this point, it was a borderline case throughout, and though articles may not be solely about acupuncture points, they can still be mined for information just on the points themselves to give greater detail. AFD pages are not the place for lengthy debates once it's clear a page passes WP:N, which I believe this one does. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appropriate expansion of detail that will not belong in the main article. As mentioned above, there are sources to show that this subtopic is separately notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It certainly needs some trimming to avoid content forking and too much overlap with the main acupuncture article, but there is certainly information in this article that would not be fitting in the main one, and as long as it's accurate and well sourced I believe it should stay.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just plain do not see forked content. I saw a four-paragraph section on 'points' in Acupuncture, and expected it to be a precis of this article's lead, or something, but it is not. Perhaps you could quote some examples.

Generally speaking, this is the same situation as at the Astrology articles. Believers add info and deletors in the service of science delete it. What the deletors do not understand, and the believers, well, probably do not appreciate either, is that it is a cultural entity that has notability outside of the issue of whether it is true or not. Both astrology and acupuncture have been studied for thousands of years, had influence over the culture of their times equivalent to priests or pundits, and have amassed bodies of literature which are considerable feats, for studies that predate the printing press. By contrast, the belief in the Flat Earth is a slightly dull history of short duration, narrow focus, and miniscule documentation, that is only notable because of its death struggle with the truth, which occupies the majority of an 82Kb article. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 26 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. J04n(talk page) 01:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McGuintyism[edit]

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

Unsourced, appears to be an neologism with no reliable or any mention in any form. See Google search. Fails WP:RS. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just learning to create a page, so to pick a term used in political circles that has not been clearly defined seems like a good spot to start. I created a page "McGuninty" that I would like deleted because the spelling of the term was incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Lowes (talk • contribs) 17:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search for "Dalton McGuinty"+"mcguintyism" came up with only 15 hits, so this can't even really be called a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from a handful of unreliable sources, not much use seems to be made of this expression. I am slightly puzzled by the author's remark about spelling, as there doesn't seem to be an article with the misspelling, and wonder if this is the article in question? Peridon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it - it's been redirected to this article. No need to do anything about it - its fate is tied to this discussion. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As more information is added the article will develop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Lowes (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Jeffrey Lowes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Doesn't fulfill requirements of WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, straightforward. Melchoir (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an attack page. Edward321 (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I don't think this inches into Attack page category, but would not object to or decline such a deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 21 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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Priti Sapru[edit]

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

Unsourced fancruft bio by single-purpose account Vikisandhu (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not "unsourced" as Bender235 stated. There is a reference verifying that an Indian TV network broadcast a film festival devoted to her. The article claims she had major roles in four Punjabi films. As her career peaked in the early 1980s, online English references are sparse, but additional print references may be available. "Fancruft" is not a convincing argument for deletion in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is more about her under the variant spelling "Preeti Sapru", e.g., [19][20][21] Also a number of hits at Google Books[22] including one that refers to her as one of the "prominent women in the art, theatre and cinema".[23] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bollywood isn't within my sphere of expertise, but a look at her IMDB entry shows 32 movies across 3 decades, including some where she appears to have been among the main cast. Also some directing work. Presumably, 80s Indian sources exist that can't easily be found online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she was a bona fide actress and a cute one at that. have seen a couple of her movies.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:35, 25 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 as hoax, salted. matt (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arlanson Airport[edit]

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

Article appears to me to be a hoax. No references are given. The name of the airport, the map coordinates given, the IATA and ICAO codes and place names are from all over the world. Further, though I was alive at the time, I don't recall any 1969 Japanese boomings of that size anywhere. Google search is negative. LilHelpa (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. There is no evidence that Arlanson, the place that this airport supposedly serves, is even a place. (Also, the photo used here implies this airport, whose coordinates place it in Indonesia, sells tickets for the Narita Express, the train that serves Narita International Airport in Japan.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax per Metropolitan90. Lots of work put into this hoax it appears. --Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax. If "the Japanese", or anybody else, had killed 905,000 people in a "booming," it would be a nearly Holocaust-class atrocity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax; no sourcing. The code "QARL" does not seem to be valid, and likely isn't. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and speedily, as an obvious hoax. Extra credit should be given for creativity and effort, though. First Light (talk) 21:55, 20 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 already deleted. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bianchi de Carvalho[edit]

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

Appears to be the biography of a non notable university student. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, fails WP:CSD A7. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - there's no need for this AfD, as it's a blatant CSD:A7 (and it already had a Speedy tag before this AfD was started) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ BsZ, for the record, I got to this page just before the CSD tag was placed and performed the nomination with twinkle, which informed me that there was already a CSD tag on the article, and asked if I wanted to remove it. I cliked cancel, thinking it would cancel the AfD. Apparently not. I apologize if I've created unnecesary work. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:19, 20 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. J04n(talk page) 17:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afrizal Malna[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important figure in Indonesian poetry, winner of the 1984 Indonesian Book Prize, has influenced many younger Indonesian poets, and there are many sources available which can be evaluated by an editor with the language skills. Cullen328 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I worked on the page this morning, cleaned up, added a bit more info, as well as four English references, although there is much more available that is not in English. He does seem to be an important Indonesian writer. Nihola (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obvious keep candidate Satu Suro 00:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 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. J04n(talk page) 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Zone USA[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 1 gnews hit [24]. most of the sources are not independent of the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- jmcw (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete I found nothing to show this new (2009) school is notable, except for the notability of its owners (the Vieira brothers). Every time this school was mentioned it was connected with one of the brothers being the owner. The given sources either link to the brothers or fail to actually mention the school at all. The Checkmat team isn't even connected to the school (the team is out of Brazil), it's connected to Leo Vieira. Astudent0 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Astudent0. I found nothing that shows this school is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 26 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. J04n(talk page) 14:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrés Molteni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has been recreated and was failed the first time for failing notability. Still fails notablity for tennis KnowIG (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One month later and he still does not meet WP:NTENNIS; there's not main draw appearances in a major tournament, and he has yet to win any of the ATP Challenger events. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd have to agree. I sourced it and added some info, but that doesn't stop him from being non-notable. Oh well. Sellyme^Talk 22:27, 24 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. For WP:GNG, Cullen's "Google News search" is vague and doesn't mention any specific sources. For WP:PROF, his h-index appear to be insufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Fattouche[edit]

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

Autobiography by "his long-time friend" Zhatim (talk · contribs). Notability is questionable. bender235 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search verifies that this businessman/engineer/inventor/professor is notable. Shortcomings due to conflict of interest because a friend of his wrote the article should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An autobiography is an article that someone writes about themself, not an article that someone writes about another person. Or does Bender235 believe that Zhatim is a meatpuppet under complete control of Michel Fattouche? Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cullen's argument holds water. The article is fairly well-formed and appears to be notable. It just needs work. Steven Walling 04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~Keep~~. With GS h index around 15 (?? see debate below) ~~just passes WP:Prof#C1.~~ Severe pruning needed at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm borderline here based on WoS h-index of only 7, although there are around 120 total citations. If this article is kept, I completely agree with Xxan than most of it should be resected – it's basically this man's CV at the moment. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep. The subject seems notable, but the lists of patents and "Product Development", along with the myriad citations corresponding to the patents, are needless and should be removed. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An h-index of 15 on GS (with only 7 on the more reliable WoS) is for me not at all sufficient for notability. No evidence any of the WP:PROF criteria (awards, etc) are otherwise met. I am curious what Cullen328 found on Google that leads to an opposite conclusion. Just some GHits is not sufficient. --Crusio (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The GS h-index goes down to 9 when you exclude patents. Since patents are often cited by legal (rather than academic sources), I think their exclusion is fair when considering grounds for academic notability. Ray^Talk 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article claims that he is the inventor and is known for "Wideband Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing" and "Direct-sequence Spread Spectrum". I note that the both phrases have plenty of hits in Google scholar, with top citation counts of 245 for the first and 2465 for the second. Fattouche's publications on the subject consist of a self-published paper on wofdm with zero citations, and a patent on dsss with (once one excludes other patents and legal opinions from the cite count) maybe four citations. So our article appears to be quite misleading, and his claims of notability don't stand up under scrutiny. His GS citation counts (excluding patents) of 57, 43, 34, 29, 21, ... are not impressive enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. But this is only a weak delete because he may have some chance of passing WP:GNG via the many newspaper articles that mention him (most trivially, but maybe there is something nontrivial in there). If it's kept for this reason, the article needs to be rewritten to be based on what the newspaper articles say about him rather than touting him as an academic achiever. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, multiply-re-created WP:COI article promoting an off-wiki agenda. Insufficient WP:RS exist to fix the problems of disputed claims made in this article. If the claims were accurate there would be many more sources available to back them ,as it is it appears that sources attributing these innovations to the subject are self-published and run counter to what independent sources say. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (Michael Jackson's Daughter)[edit]

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Unreferenced, and it's unlikely Michael Jackson's children would meet notability guidelines simply because they're his children (see WP:INHERITED). Article creator has also created (as of this nomination) 1 other article with the same concern. elektrik SHOOS 09:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ironic that the article is an orphan. Lugnuts (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Jackson#HIStory, second marriage and fatherhood (1995–99). We already have a redirect for Paris_Katherine_Jackson and I think this is another ~~plausible~~ searchable variant of her name. I don't think Paris Jackson is notable on her own, however, redirecting could could be a good option, given the importance and notability of her father. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a first choice per nom, but as a second choice redirect per Vejvancicky. I don't think Paris Jackson (Michael Jackson's Daughter) is a plausible variant of her name, but, on the other hand, redirects are cheap. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect - There is nothing salvageable or useful in this article that would require a contrib history to be retained. Searches by this name will take users first to Paris Katherine Jackson a CFL football player, with a dablink there pointing to Paris Katherine Jackson, which is already a redirect to MJ. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation if she does something to become famous in her own right. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply put, if the best disambig title for her is (Michael Jackson's Daughter), I don't even need to read the article to know she is not notable except by association. (Don't worry, I did read the article and check for sources and everything). gnfnrf (talk) 16:32, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince blanket[edit]

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Unreferenced, and it's unlikely Michael Jackson's children would meet notability guidelines simply because they're his children (see WP:INHERITED). elektrik SHOOS 08:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough in its own right to be satirised by South Park. Jackson's kids aren't necsesarily notable, the Blanket kid is. MLA (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would fall under WP:BLP1E, then. Being known for only one event does not usually get one a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't even a plausible redirect, given that it doesn't contain a surname. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The baby dangling incident is adequately covered in the main article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited and notability for one event runs aground on WP:BLP1E issues. Not a useful or likely redirect; users can find their way to MJ's page via Prince Jackson, Prince Michael Jackson, and Prince Michael Jackson I already. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a separate article on a bankie that has no independent notability. It is likely to become a POV fork. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TeraBrite[edit]

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

First off, the creator of this article obviously has a COI with the band. Secondly, I'm not sure that the sources give a significant amount of coverage to the band. The article might not meet the WP:BAND criteria, and that's why I nominate this article for deletion. Third, if this article is kept, it should be cleaned up to meet encyclopedic standards and get rid of non-neutral POV. Ingadres (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with this for the following reasons.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

The article includes sources of the following: newspaper articles (Florida Today), online versions of print media (Florida Today), and television documentaries (Conan).

- comment: te band must be THE SUBJECT of the news articles, this isn't the case here. Sorry Ingadres (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

"According to The International Association Of Independent Recording Artists or IAIRA, on 10/21/2010 No One Knows, by TeraBrite, had attained The Number 100 Position on at least one of the charts monitored and verified by IAIRA, making it eligible for Certification as an International 'Top 100'."

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

They are getting a booth at Playlist LIVE in Orlando, FL

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

TeraBrite obviously stands out as the only two piece band from Melbourne Florida with a well known YouTube channel to be on Conan. There obviously isn't any real way to back up that kind of statement, but it is arguable true.

9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Shorty Awards: Nominated

Sprint EPIC contest: Won Conan's VD Explosion: Won

- - Comment - neither of those are MUSIC competitions. Sorry. Ingadres (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

Theme songs for CTFxC (Internet Killed Television), SHAYTARDS, Logan McKay, and VleraBrite

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

TeraBrite has been in rotation on American Variety Radio with Cout Lewis, WFIT-89.5 FM - Melbourne, FL, WMFE-90.7 FM - Orlando, FL, WQCS-88.9 - Ft. Pierce, FL, and has been talked about and had songs played on 107.1 WA1A.

12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

TeraBrite was on Conan for the majority of the show on Valentine's Day. Also, TeraBrite is featured every Sunday on the front page of Stickam.com where they perform their songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yournameinink (talk • contribs) 08:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Yournameinink (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Ingadres (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My acid test for self-promotion with bands is "check the last.fm page" - http://www.last.fm/music/TeraBrite - and the result is only 44 unique listeners, no comments. Bienfuxia (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of test is that? That makes no sense at all. TeraBrite calls themselves a YouTube band. Go look at their YouTube channel. Even their Myspace, facebook, and Twitters are completely different stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.238.48 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube, Myspace, Facebook and Twitter are often tools for self-promotion. Last.fm is more relevant because it records the number of mp3 or CD plays from real people and can't so easily be bumped up for promotional purposes. Bienfuxia (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is just a ridiculous test that might be accurate for a normal band. Like I said, TeraBrite bases everything they make and put on iTunes off of their YouTube channel. They obviously just made the Last.fm page to have one and I don't know of anyone who actually uses that site. TeraBrite are YouTube partners and get thousands of unique views and new subscribers every day on their YouTube channel from real people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yournameinink (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Rationale:

Unreliable sources: TerabriteMusic.com, a WP:PRIMARY source affiliated with the band; YouTube videos which are also WP:PRIMARY and too closely affiliated with the band to be considered reliable; a WordPress.com blog, which fails WP:RS; CDBaby, which is user-submitted, failing WP:RS
Slightly more reliable sources: Florida Today articles are legit, however only one article mentions the word "Terabrite" and the second article is in regards to the filmmakers, not the band ; Sprint YouTube video – the winner of the contest was Donald M., Florida, and nowhere is it written, stated, or said that the winner was TeraBrite; Shorty Awards is fine; TeamCoco.com – Related to this source is note 12 from WP:BAND: "Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network," to which Yournameinink (talk · contribs) replied above that the band appeared on the talk show Conan. However, the band was not represented on the talk show; they were not introduced as such, and they were not the subject of the show. They were both introduced separately as DJ Monopoli and Sabrina Abu-Obeid as winners of a dinner for a couple (not a band) for winning a video-making contest.
Discography is composed entirely of redlinks and from what I can infer, none are actual disc releases, at least certainly not theme songs, theme songs for YouTube videos, or Christmas cards.
The entirety of the article reads like a self-promotional brochure for the band, lacking completely in neutral point-of-view WP:PROMOTION – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Keraunoscopia. (Incidentally, "VD Explosion"? I thought VD was something you got cured of, not won...) Peridon (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – IP user 97.102.238.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is geolocated in Winter Park, Florida (ip2location.com) and although the IP made a comment with this edit, the IP apparently edited Yournameinink's comment with this edit. If you are one and the same, please note that you can improve your accountability and increase community trust by logging in to a single account to make any and all additional comments. See WP:SOCK for more information. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken E. Cooper[edit]

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

BLPPROD was removed by autobiographical author, but no reliable sources given or found to pass WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. tedder (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:NMUSIC and lack of sources Pi (Talk to me! ) 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of proper sources, not notable; suspected self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zerop reliable sources are available about the subject, so he is unlikely to pass WP:GNG much less WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Chan[edit]

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

Biography of a religious practitioner that lacks the significant coverage in independent sources required to demonstrate notability. Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability in sources Pi (Talk to me! ) 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've included a third party reference to this article. Edmund was interviewed in 1992 by the Femine magazine (Volume 222, Published on 20th. July 1993), an international publications by the Life Publishers Group. More information about the validity of this publication can be found by reading Media Chinese International. Please search for 'Feminine'. I've also managed to find the printed copy of that old magazine from my old cupboard. I'm not sure if I need to scan the pages from the magazine and post it here for reference, or shall I made a video recording?

The purpose I created a page for Edmund is that he was referenced from the article - Heart Sutra. If we delete this page of Edmund, is that meant we have to delete the portion on Heart Sutra as well? Is that so difficult to expand articles on Buddhism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhammananda (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent sources not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi everyone, it seems that you guys doesn't believe on the notability of the reference. Give me some time, perhaps a week, let me scan the Feminine Magazine and put it here. Dhammananda (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue here is notability, and more specifically a person's notability, and not verifiability (or what you call validity). In essence, you need to show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A single interview in the Feminine Magazine is not going to change that. --Muhandes (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muhandes, thanks for your explanation. If a single interview is not going to change that, than we can provide more sources. The fact that a person is not known by the majority of wikipedia's admin does not establish the fact that the person has no significant coverage. Wikipedia has grown so big that it is no more contained in a single cultural viewpoint, nor a groups of cultural viewpoint. We are lucky that the wikipedia was not founded in China. As for example, majority of people from China may not even heard about Jimmy Wales, but this does not establish the fact that Jimmy has no notability. In this example, we have to provide enough room for the page Jimmy Wales to expand, before the Communist Party delete it. If it is deleted, we would not have the wikipedia of today. My humble objective is just to help on editing and correcting pages about Buddhism, which any Buddhist scholar will agree that the current Wikipedia articles on subjects about Buddhism is full of bias facts. Given the nature and sensitivity about religion, and even about Buddhism which has many sects and traditions, the wikipedia has fail to provide a neutral point of view. It is not my purpose to promote any person, nor to propagate any other agenda here, my humble work is just to see the Buddhist Portal as it is on the Five Pillars. Let's all expand the encyclopedia we love so much without prejudice. In some certain case, deleting a page is actually a hindrance for a non-bias encyclopedia, and it is only when we all here are mature enough to act in more inclusive way, that we can hope for a real universal online encyclopedia. Dhammananda (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammananda, there is no need to take this personally. If Edmund Chan is notable, I'm sure you can provide a number of reliable, independent, secondary sources, and we will all be happy to keep the article. --Muhandes (talk) 00:22, 23 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. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison train crash[edit]

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

It's a single event with no notable effect. More importantly though, the exact same level of detail already exists at [[25]] Yaksar (let's chat) 05:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The New York Times called it "one of the most remarkable accidents in the history of railroads" and 19 people were killed. The article can be expanded, and the fact that it is mentioned in a list is no reason to delete this article and its reference. Cullen328 (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not, but the fact that all that seems to be said about it is basically in the list (or should be, it's entry at the list is quite short) is a different story.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few references that I believe establish notability. If the sabotage hypothesis every gained more popularity I imagine other news source would exist too, but their archives may not be online. Ravendrop 07:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to references in good sources (NY times) and the substantial nature of the crash Pi (Talk to me! ) 09:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-referenced, establishing this as a major event at the time. A train crash with 19 fatalities in 1897 is just as notable as the same crash in 2011, and we have reliable sources as well.Avram (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being well referenced doesn't override WP:EVENT. WP:EFFECT applies here. I don't see enduring notability. 19 people being killed doesn't guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable, albeit in a local way, but that doesn't stop it from being notable. It's verifiable. The article is decent quality. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this article has been preserved at Train Spotting World in case of deletion on Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced. It might be a bit local ... but still no need for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable, and I think this would be notable regardless of time or place. Like Avram, I would judge it by the same standards that we would apply to a 2007 rail accident that killed 19 people. And I sincerely believe that both Yaksar and Libstar feel that this would be barred as simply WP:NOTNEWS, even if it had happened in 2007 rather than 1897. However, I think that major transportation disasters qualify as WP:EVENT by being identified in almanacs and other reference books long after they have happened. That the same level of detail is on List of rail accidents (pre-1950) doesn't affect my conclusion-- indeed, I think it simply shows up the fact that Wikipedia is top heavy on the "this just in" stuff and remarkably light on history, where everything that happened in 2010 gets its own article, and 135 years worth of events gets dumped into a "pre-1950" page. That's going to happen in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, with a demographic where most of the contributors were still children back in 1999. Mandsford 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mandsford said it much better than I could have done. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes the GNG by a comfortable margin. bobrayner (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to the assessment of the nominee, this article has far more detail on the accident than the brief mention on the list. The only real issue with this article is that it's about a local crash. ----DanTD (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, beyond the obvious GNG compliance, the number of track walkers be immediately increased is a clear indication that this accident did have an WP:EFFECT on general railroad policy and guideline at that time. --Pgallert (talk) 15:15, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Presbyterian Church (New Brunswick, New Jersey)[edit]

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

Non notable church, doesn't meet criteria for a company or organization, all coverage seems to be a passing mention or trivial in nature Yaksar (let's chat) 05:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A congregation that dates back to 1726, that was the subject of a book as long ago as 1852[26], and whose fire in 1946 was covered by The New York Times (which described the church as "historic")[27] is obviously notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Old things are not necessarily notable. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see evidence of the substantial coverage which our guidelines demand. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is a 52-page book about the subject not substantial coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "is one of the oldest churches in the Presbyterian denomination" says the lede and the New York Times. I love Stifle's sense of humor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, everyone has the right to give their input and reasoning, there's no reason to be demeaning like that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears to be a historic church and one of its pastors is even notable enough to have been included in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. But does it still exist as this name? Googling, I can't find any evidence of its continued existence, but I find http://newbrunswickpresbyterian.org/, which calls itself "The Presbyterian Church of New Brunswick, NJ" (not "First"). Are they one in the same? --B (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name has changed as geography in New Jersey changed. It is earlier referred to as "Presbyterian Church" then "First Presbyterian Church" as a retronym when a second one was built in that Presbtyr. Then Presbyterian Church again after the second one disappeared. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article makes a more than credible claim of notability, supported by adequate sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability and sourcing look pretty good to me. The Interior (Talk) 02:46, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeAuthThis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable podcast. Sourced by itself. Notability is not inhereted from a notable guest. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Missed this the first time around. Arguably eligible for speedy deletion under A7. Interviewing a notable person does not make your podcast notable and there's no other reason I can see why this meets the guidelines. Zachlipton (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources demostrating notability roll around; currently there are none. Hairhorn (talk) 03:02, 21 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 keep. Notability has been convincingly demonstrated, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiang Chung-ling[edit]

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

The article is very vage and there is only one reference without any proper notiballity.No references and it just says translation which can not be confurmed by english users. The translated article also does not have any references in its own country. Its019 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as per WP:GNG, as many sources can be found in a Chinese search. Now adding and cleaning. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minister of Defense is an important post, and the information is verifiable by reliable sources, see Taipei Times, South China Morning Post etc. In my opinion, the subject is notable enough to meet WP:POLITICIAN. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the Minister of Defense for a country normally guarantees that a person is notable for Wikipedia purposes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is not properly written, but the subject matter is clearly notable. --Nlu (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable in accordance with WP:GNG. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A general and government minister. What exactly is non-notable about this man? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actual government Minister. The nom brought up reasons for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hate to make this more SNOWy, but he was in an incredibly significant position--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per WP:POLITICIAN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:56, 21 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 Geography of Illinois. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of Illinois[edit]

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

This list purports to be a list of "regions" of Illinois; it is not. It is a collection of someone's quite random ideas about the geography of the state. Though it is listed in a template box at the bottom as one of a series of state lists of political divisions, only two other states have "entries", and at least in the case of Illinois (I don't know the other two states well enough to comment on theirs), the divisions are generally not political in nature. That they overlap and are non-comprehensive is further evidence of their arbitrariness. In short, this is just someone's original research, and not very compelling OR at that. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I'm personally aware of local usage of some of these region names, this list as a whole is total OR. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. This is a list of the articles in Category: Regions of Illinois, with a bit of explanation for those persons who don't want to do the "and what's under this rock?" way of finding information. I agree that the lack of citations needs to be fixed by using the same citations from those articles to this one. Mandsford 18:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added sources from the other articles, that had sources (I've left River Bend (Illinois) out unless someone can identify that. There's still more to be done, however. We don't have sourced definitions for what's described in the articles about the division between Northern, Central and Southern Illinois. Mandsford 18:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lack of citations is not the problem. It's a lack of coherence, and the impossibility of it ever being achieved with this content. It's akin to creating an article like this:

List of farm things

It's gibberish, and serves no purpose that I can see. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I assure you, I can find citations indicating that all of these items on the list can be found on a farm. Doesn't make them the foundation for a coherent article.

While it is certainly possible that a coherent structure could exist for defining the regions of Illinois, your citations do not provide this. I'm not sure I've made myself clear, but my point is, it is not the parts that constitute original research, it's the act of synthesizing them into a single article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of "List of regions of x" articles with x being a particular country, continent, or other area. These lists do not purport to synthesize the regions into a consistent system; they purport to catalogue the various ways in which these areas have been divided, whether colloquially, linguistically, physiographically, historically, or otherwise. This list could do with considerable expansion, but it should not be deleted. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Illinois. The concept of the state's regions can be discussed there. Dough 48 72 04:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think Dough4872 has the right idea: the Illinois article should include regional discussions; this article is superfluous and a potential content-fork. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is an easy thing to suggest, but more difficult to carry out in practice. There's no reason that you can't rewrite tge article about Illinois if you want to do so, but it's not absolutely necessary. Still, I'm not averse to the concept of merging this to Geography of Illinois, which would be a relatively simple task. Mandsford 02:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with the merging. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. It's been merged and this redirects to Geography of Illinois. Mandsford 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD challenge has been rendered moot and can be safely closed. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 27 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 "keep" !votes in the beginning are rather vague and weak. However, Ism schism has provided sources, which have not resulted in discussion for three days. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yadunandana Swami[edit]

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

There's no coverage in idependent reliable sources to establish notability. Gaura79 (talk) 07:52, 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) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are sources that support notability claimed, but article needs improving to get up to the standard. Wikid ^as© 12:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject. They are ISKCON sources and cannot be used to establish notability.Gaura79 (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta College is not a "dependent" or managed by ISKCON, and he is the principal so that is the reasoning for keep (you obviously will not agree with it). The sources of the Parlament of Religions is not dependent on ISKCON. Also this article in EL PAÍS confirms that he is in-charge of ISKCON Spain, [28], and [29]. Obviously being a religious leader most of information is from religious sources, but these are independent of him as well, info from his website can be added but should not be used to establish notability I think, I sufficient work was put in this article to support notability and inclusion. Wikid ^as© 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also was elected ISKCON Euro-GBC Minister of Education just a few month ago. [30]. Thanks, Wikid ^as© 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikidas. Agreed that the article needs work, but the subject is notable. --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 19:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Shruti14. The subject is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Need expansion but can be retain. Bill william compton (talk) 16:38, 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, Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment At a glance this looks like an easy "keep" decision, but many, if not all, of the keep arguments are based on WP:ITSNOTABLE and lack solid policy based support. Not saying they are wrong, haven't done any research on the topic, but assertions of notability are not enough at AFD, actual evidence is expected. Therefore, giving this another week in the hope that more policy based reasoning will become evident.Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on it. The sources provided in the article and here confirm that the subject is notable, is included and described in the reliable sources and meets the WP:GEN guidelines. Wikid ^as© 05:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject is head of Bhaktivedanta College. Subject is a senior religious leader as he is an ISKCON swami, and a member of the Governing Body Commission. This a very clear keep, especially given that all of these are cited in the article and/or in the discussion above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bhaktivedanta College has 30 academic staff and so would not qualify as a "major academic institution" under WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree; but even if that were true, the subject is still a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:01, 22 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, Cunard (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisted for more discussion about the sources and the comment by Xxanthippe (talk · contribs). Since Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)'s relist, participants have stated that the sources in the article are sufficient to establish notability. However, they have not pointed out specific secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Yadunandana Swami.
Once there is analysis about specific sources that establish notability, the discussion can be closed. Cunard (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful, too, if keepers would say under which category notability is claimed. It seems that WP:Prof is not satisfied and that there are no sources independent of ISKCON. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete per Admin's comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you've changed your position, so it'd be a good idea to strike your "keep" from last week (above) lest there be some confusion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof and sources are not adequate for anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note -- it does not make sense to apply WP:Prof while it is actually a case of a notable leader in the Hare Krishna sect. While the number of staff may or may not be important in this case, the fact that the college is notable makes the person who manages him and is sects minister of education notable and there are sources that confirm that. Wikid ^as© 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argument is fallacious. See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF cleanly, there appears to be a lack of reliable sourcing to support under the GNG as well, per Xxan's remarks. Ray^Talk 19:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The requirements suggested by editors that this subject should be held strictly to the standards of WP:PROF are lacking. The subject is a religious leader. This subject is also the head of an international religious organization's main educational institution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how this comment is connected with your changed vote user Ism schism? I also can not see why WP:Prof even being used. The point is that as you say, and I prefer if people who vote would have at least some expertise in the area. Wikid ^as© 07:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that WP:Prof is applicable at all. The subject we are discussing is a religious leader. Unfortunately, Wikipedia policy does not include a WP:Religious leader for guidelines. This has come up again and again in Afds on religious leaders, and the subject up for discussion is the very archetype that this discussion can not solve. I can not, and will not, vote on this subject based on the criteria of WP:Prof. There needs to be a WP:Religious leader guideline, but there is not. The subject should not be deleted due to a lack of policy guidelines as the subject is a religious leader, and a notable one considering its context. I will add more to this discussion, but will reflect more in the next few days, until then. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that WP:Prof is failed. Is there a pass under other categories? There has been a discussion of the notability of clergy here [31]. Consensus view seemed to be that religious leaders were expected to pass WP:GNG and were not notable ex officio. In this case it seems that sources are not independent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep First, keep per Wikidas' comments and links above. This is a notable religious leader. In addition, here are some more reasons. This individual is an ISKCON Sannyasi, which makes him one of the few highest religious leaders in a world religion. Please see; Four New ISKCON Sannyasis Bring Total to Eighty-Four in 2011. This individual is also the leader of the Hare Krishna movement in Spain. For some strictly non-ISKCON material referring to this please see; [32], [33], and [34]. The subject is also the rector of Bienvenido a IE Bhaktivedanta [35]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:50, 24 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities with Wikipedia article names without state[edit]

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

I believe this is a useless list: For one thing it's essentially a self reference, and that's really the only context it could be useful in. I don't believe that any reader would particularly want to find or see a list of these articles. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Wikipedia namespace, it is useful for cleanup. When working on articles on cites editors search for the state name, these don't have the state name, so I moved to Wikipedia:List of U.S. cities with Wikipedia article names without state. It is only of interest for cleanup bots and other automated Wikipedia processes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nom on the page itself as it's been moved to a more appropriate namespace. I suggest the redirect be deleted, however. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Richard Arthur Norton, you understood exactly why I created this page. I removed the now-inappropriate Article for deletion template from the article. When I originally created the article, I carelessly had "U.S" instead of "U.S." in the article name, so that redirect needs to go, and the more recent redirect can be deleted as well, as far as I'm concerned. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for author request CSD. OSborn^arf_contribs. 02:10, 20 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) 00:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Cole[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced bio that does not meet WP:ARTIST. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ludicrous. Someone else who has a great deal of time, please count the number of things that are wrong with this nomination. I might get upset and write something I regretted. Anarchangel (talk) 21:27, 19 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) 00:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even the most cursory of searches shows the subject is notable. The article needs major cleanup, but this is no reason for deletion. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to WP:Cleanup. Award-winning notable artist. In this case, unreferenced does not equate to unreferencable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Not making it somebody else's job, I have started on cleanup and sourcing. What began as this is already looking better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Nom's should do a wp:before search and focus on the refs that can be added. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 26 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos Digital Entertainment[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Only reference is a single interview on a blog page. No independent sources or google hits outside of comprehensive databases like IGN and MobyGames. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews doesn't produce indepth significant coverage thus fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 14 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) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found a few more sources (it doesn't help that they are often referred to as "Kronos" or "Kronos Digital", or that much of their work gets credited to Eidos or Vic Tokai, or that they haven't had an active web presence in years). I could flesh out the article a fair bit from the Stan Liu interview, which is full of info.I haven't added anything from that interview because I'd like to see what can be built from other sources first. Reading WP:CORPDEPTH, I think the current sources (I'll try to find more when I'm not so tired) establish the variety of sources, and the interview provides enough content "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub". Although the other sources don't provide a wealth of information, the information they contain could not be considered trivial by WP:CORPDEPTH's standards. I realize that pulling the bulk of content from one interview may not be ideal, but consider it a secondary version of sourcing information from a company's "history" or "about us" page (the difference being that this is first-party info in response to, and filtered by, a second party). Again, the circumstances aren't ideal, but enough to pass WP:CORP. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the existence of sources uncovered by JohnnyMrNinja. Additional SPS sourcing can be found on the internet archive here (Useful information can only be found in the pre-2003 dates). -Thibbs (talk) 15:24, 16 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) 00:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per research by JohnnyMrNinja above. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good research JohnnyMrNinja.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Paradis[edit]

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

BLP-prod contested with the addition of a one-line IMDB entry. No notability shown. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created page for Composer Cardly Paradis and added links/reference after. Passing the page over to Carly Paradis to update with references and citations. I have a picture but do not have wikipedia permissions to upload it. http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzODMzNTczOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzY5NjgwNA@@._V1_.jpg Thanks. 86.18.1.20 (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links/references have been added. Is this page OK now to keep? It will be update over the next few days/weeks with information. Mrchrismurray (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was proded within a minute of being created, and was at AfD within a quarter hour. Seems a bit hasty and the article has been significantly improved since.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Weak Delete~~, marginal. Qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO #10 for the Moon soundtrack, but that criteria specificaly says it's not enough on it's own. Similarly, the Moon composition is arguable for WP:COMPOSER #1, but as it's the same thing I don't think this is enough. As it stands a delete, but a little bit more notability on something other than that film would tip it over.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- My reading of the article and sources is that she merely arranged some of the music for the soundtrack, orders of magnitude less notable than actually composing it.nancy 16:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, thats not the same. There are other compositions listed now though (added while I was writting my comment above). Definitely makes WP:MUSICBIO #10 for playing on Moon, but needs a bit more with citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I agree re making #10 - otherwise we'd have articles for every session musician there ever was who played on a hit album; I'd have to be convinced that the performance was significant - major solo piece for example. nancy 16:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Article claims she played piano for the whole soundtrack, which I think comes under Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a [...] notable film. The film is definitely notable and she performed on it. However, that criteria also makes clear that it's not enough on it's own to establish notability. But if in conjunction with some others then would work for me. Work is still being done on the article so I'm going to come back in a couple of days and take a fresh look at it--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        More info has been added with references, including previous work in Canada Mrchrismurray (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 15 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) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Work has been made since this Afd was put on. I say Keep now.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely a keeper. I wouldn't argue with Steven Seagal. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wow, a stub with over 30 refs! I'm happy that notability has now been established. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the next step guys, how do we come to a decision and remove the Afd if it's decided to stay? Thanks, Chris.Mrchrismurray (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typically an admin will review the AfD 7 days after it is opened, and will judge it based on the consensus and whether that is aligned with policy. Looking at the discussion above, I can't imagine any other result than keep, so I think you're fine to carry on editing the article on the assumption that the AfD will be closed in favour of keeping the article. Don't worry about the templates on the article, the reviewing admin will sort all that out when the AfD is closed. They should stay there in the meantime though--ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, the AfD was already reviewed once on the 20th, and relisted as there wasn't a clear consensus at the time. It will likely be reviewed again on the 27th. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:27, 23 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Consumption Goals - MCG[edit]

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

Too early. Proposed term by a professor. at this point it is completely unclear whether this term will come in accepted use. There are a couple of hits, often intertwined with "Millennium Development Goals". Most hits specifically on this topic are from blogs. Until this term is actually widely accepted it is really a matter of WP:NOTNEWS and questionable long term notability. Travelbird (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is on the UN agenda and discussions are moving forward in civil society, business, research and govt. networks. Should be retained with cross ref. to well known MDG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldscribe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete current version as a copyright violation of the article summaries posted at the externally linked site. The topic may still be of value to cover in a well written, sourced article. I suggest running the article wizard and building up a draft in userspace first. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article reworded to avoid potential copyright problems. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldscribe (talk • contribs) 08:52, 14 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) 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a nice theory. My crystal ball tells me there's no way this turns into anything. Millennium Development Goals are used by developed countries as a means to target their development spend which is why they matter. This is just a political stunt and will not succeed at the UN so won't become notable. MLA (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Millennium Development Goals are top down and depend on government actions. However, second paragraph of MCG article makes clear that this is also a bottom up approach that is getting a good response at city and community levels. The UN discussions may take time, but grass roots action is moving faster among civil society, community and business groups. Therefore, definitely not a political stunt. Let us see over the next few months. comment added by Worldscribe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.23.57 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it does turn into something then it gains notability and becomes an article but the crystal ball point is partly illustrative of the current lack of notability. It is too early to tell right now so too early for an article to exist. MLA (talk) 22:09, 20 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 Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Gibbons[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the incorrect grounds that the Cypriot First League is fully pro. According to sourcing at WP:FPL it is not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 21:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new evidence has come to light that the Cypriot league is fully-pro, meaning he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Gibbons was a member of the first team squad at Nottingham Forest in this season's Championship. He was given a first team squad number 42 in a completely professional football club. In order to receive a first team number, a player must be recognised and deemed eligible by both the English Football Association (The F.A.) and by the Professional Footballers' Association (P.F.A. - the association for professional footballers in England and Wales. It is the world's oldest professional sportspersons' association and has 4,000 members). In registering the player as a first team squad member he would become an automatic member of both associations. It seems harsh for Wikipedia to deem the player as not being a professional football player, when these two great associations consider him to be both a professional and a member of their ranks. FanfootnffcFanfootnffc 18:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a footballer to be notable for being professional, he must actually play for a professional club. Gibbons never actually played a single minute for Nottingham. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I did not realise that this was the problem. So it is the issue of notability that is in question and not the issue of whether or not he is a professioanal footballer? What happens if he gets minutes with his new club in Cyprus, because he was on the bench in the last two games? I have noticed that the Cypriot league is not considered fully professional by Wikipedia standards, but I am aware that Gibbons is on a professional contract over there and that Alki Larnaca is a professional club. Fanfootnffc 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline governing notability for notability for footballers is WP:NFOOTBALL which requires not only the club but the league to be fully professional, in order for the appearance do grant notability. The members of the WikiProject football have compiled a useful list of fully pro league, which lists the Cypriot First Division as a non-fully-pro league, so even if he plays in Cyprus he still would not be notable. Besides, that's speculation and not relevant unless he actually plays. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance aware of how they came about compiling this list as the Cypriot First Division is a fully professional league. All fourteen teams in the division pay their players and train five days a week like any other full time professional clubs, so what is it that prevents the league from gaining the status of professionalism? Also, looking at the "List of fully professional leagues" listed on the link you posted, I have noticed that a lot of them are of a lesser standard than the football played in Cyprus. This is not just my opinion, but based on the official UEFA Association coefficient ("League coefficient") ranking table, where the Cypriot League lies 20th.[[36]] (See "Association coefficient ("League coefficient")" As for the speculation issue, I am sure you can appreciate that if a player has been on the bench in the first two games he is eligible to play in, it is only a matter of time before he will make an appearance. Perhaps he has not played yet, but it seems futile to delete an article that will be relevant, true and notable in a the next week or two. Fanfootnffc 14:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL is based on available sources on the pro status of the league. The source listed for the Cypriot league states APOEL F.C. are one of the few fully pro clubs in the league, meaning that most of the clubs are not. If you can source your claims of professionalism I'd be inclined to say that the league is fully pro, but in the mean time, we have to go with the sources we've got. As for your comment concerning the UEFA-coefficients, it is completely irrelevant. It is professionalism and not the quality of football that determines notability. Finally, the claim that he will play at some point is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and therefore not grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and your comments Sir Sputnik, much appreciated. Fanfootnffc 17:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I commented on this discussion, there were two outstanding issues regarding the player being considered worthy of notability to have a page on Wikipedia. One was that the Cypriot First Division was not considered a fully professional league by Wikipedia, where as I contested that it was. The other was that Gibbons had not played any minutes for a first team that are part of a fully professioanal league, which I felt was only a matter of time before it happened, mentioning that he had been on the bench in the first two games he was eligible to play in after he became registered in Cyprus. As for the professional status of the Cypriot First Division, I have come across two articles that might help clear up this issue. The first is an article from The Economist called 'Foreigners account for a third of players in Europe's top football leagues'[[37]], which states that "Proportionally, teams in Cyprus are the biggest importers (of foreign players): more than 70% of players in the Cypriot first division are foreign, according to a report from the Professional Football Players Observatory". If a league is made up by 70% foreign professionals, one could assume that all fourteen clubs in that division are professional clubs in order to pay these players. The second article I found, is a report in The Sport Journal on the 'Important Parameters of the Football Industry in Cyprus'[[38]] and it backs the previous point up even more by clearly stating that "Interviews were conducted with the presidents or secretaries general of all 14 footballs clubs in the first division of the national league, the professional clubs in Cyprus". Hopefully this is enough detail to shift opinion to that of the Cypriot First Division being a fully professional league and changes being made accordingly. As for the second matter mentioned, that of Gibbons not having played any minutes for a team that are part of a fully professional league, as of the 16th February 2011 this is not the case as he came on for the first team and had some playing time. I am unsure if this is enough to overcome this stipulation as the game was a cup game, not a league game, but was still a competitive first team match and he did appear for a team who do play in a fully professional league. Perhaps you could clear this issue up for me. Thanks. Fanfootnffc 10:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like the Cypriot League is fully pro. However, I'm uncomfortable making that decision unilaterally, so I've brought it up for discussion, with the sources you provided, here in order to get some input from other editors. As for your question on domestic cup games, the general consensus is that they confer notability if both teams play in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Sir Sputnik. I understand that it is only fair to properly discuss the issue of the pro status of the league. Both teams do play in the Cypriot First Division, so I guess both issues depend on what comes of that discussion. Much obliged for your efforts and thoroughness. Fanfootnffc 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as nominator. Based the sources provided above, the subject now passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 19 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) 00:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep latest information provided above shows he has played at a notable (professional) level. Eldumpo (talk) 11:09, 22 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xacti[edit]

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

Article is little more than a list of models, has no references, and does nothing to establish that the range is notable ColinFine (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to be a major product line from Sanyo with the Xacti brand being the pistol shaped camcorder. Not surprisingly Xacti models are reviewed in technology magazines such as PC World, and PC Magazine. These are only two out of a huge list of reviews of Xacti products from technology press. Beyond that, mainstream sources such as the Edmonton Journal and the New York Times, and again. -- Whpq (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sanyo article as a subsection for exactly the reasons mentioned by User:Whpq previously. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 15 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) 00:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is evidently notable and just needs improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reason above, that Xacti is a major product line from Sanyo. I agree that the article needs work. Istara (talk) 09:57, 25 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.