< 6 February	8 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 merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar's Linguistic Concepts and Criteria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sarkar's Linguistic Concepts and Criteria

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

No evidence of notability, just citations of author's own works Macrakis (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - but even if it were notable, it still smacks of original research. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable and notable to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; delete the rest. —Angr (talk) 22:04, 12 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verifiable elements to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (although the sources given appear to be primary sources) without redirect. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar: that article's not too long to contain this information, which does seem verifiable. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 15 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This list article fails to meet WP:V ("If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it") as both the sites used are primary sources of estimates with no means to verify or challenge their figures. The lead text for this list correctly states that: "Box office figures in India are not published, as there is no official source".

The article is based on two sources and is in essence a mass re-posting of their research:

The IBOS network which explains on their disclaimer web page that there is no uniformity in the figures gathered from trade outlets and domestic figures are from trade outlets and unspecified independent theater trackers. Figures for "older films" (unspecified) are extrapolations. The disclaimer page also limits re-use for non-commercial purposes only.
BoxOfficeIndia makes the following statement "The numbers on this site are all indicative as actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors." A detailed explanation of how their estimates are created is given on this page which states "The figures on the website are not actual figures but estimates but these estimates are very close to the actual totals."

This AFD is raised in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Telugu-language films which were deleted for failure to meet WP:V but this article should be judged on its own merits. Fæ (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many (most?) Indian film articles depend either on this article, or at least on these two sources to show how well the films did. If this article goes away, then under the same rationale must all income figures be removed from all Indian film articles (including GA and FA) as well? How must anyone know which films did well as compared to others? I think it would be wrong to have absolutely no income figures at all. What is so wrong with estimates if estimates are all we have and they are marked as such? BollyJeff || talk 00:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Keep this article.. it is a valuable and only source for list of highest grossing hindi movies in wikipedia.. the sources are proper.. unlike tamil and telugu movies list, this article has geniune source.. so please keep this article..Geocraze talk 17:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the discussions in previous similar AfDs shown by the nom. Bollyjeff's concern about the individual articles is valid, but i would say keep the numbers in the film articles and explain there in a footnote or in article text, that the numbers are extrapolations/unreliable etc. It is ok to present numbers with caveats there as long as no conclusions like "highest grossing film" etc are made. But to make an absolute list giving out positions based on such guess work is a bad practice. There is always a danger of such lists reproduced in the media becoming fact through WP:CIRCULAR. (it almost happened in the case of the tamil film list).--Sodabottle (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions like "highest grossing film" are exactly the kind of statements needed to establish a film's notability to be on WP in the first place. Can't we come up with a way to make these articles work without deleting them entirely? BollyJeff || talk 16:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Fæ and Sodabottle. I'd like to point out, that boxofficeindia.com and IBOS websites don't provide details, who they are. These are totally unreliable sources. --Wangond (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep boxofficeindia.com is the primay and most reliable source reporting box office figures for Hindi films in India. Its reliability has already been proven and accepted once on RSN (I'll find the link soon). In general I can say that it is used as a source of information in the most reputed newspapers in India (see links: The Times of India, The Economic Times, Hindustan Times) and even abroad (The Times). I think if these sources can use it, then I see no reason why WP cannot, particularly considering the fact that the data is not presented as factual, but the source is mentioned, letting the readers decide if they want or do not want to believe it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

newspapers have the same problem like wikipedia having no official box office sources like they have in other countries. So they cite anonymous websites like boxofficeindia.com. You don't even get whois information for this website. This is neither encyclopedic nor good journalism. It violates WP:V--Wangond (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers do not cite anything that comes their way, this is a very incorrect and baseless statement. Secondly, as I said, the site was accepted on WP:RSN after a long debate. I will try to find it again, and until then I do not see the point of arguing over this. Additionally, this is a source which has been used on Wikipedia for years now and on many Hindi film related articles, and this cannot be ignored. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:RSN discussion you refer to was probably: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com. The conclusion was that it is not a reliable source, the exact opposite of your statement here. Please check your facts before making misleading claims about a prior consensus. Fæ (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, quit the hostility, because I did not yet make a firm claim and clearly said I'd come with a link. Yes, this is the discussion I'm referring to, and kindly you do check your facts because there was not a conclusion that it was not a reliable source. Throughout the discussion, many editors were for and against, but If you look at the last section of this huge thread, you will see that User:Relata refero finally showed many evidences which proved its reliability, after which Girolamo finally came in support of the site, as did other editors who did not bother to reappear on the board. But you know what, even without this discussion, you can see that most editors on this page are all for using this site, and, except Wangond, you are now the only one who tries hard to disprove it, after it has been used for years on WP without major opposition. Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I invite any other reader of this thread to look at the RSN discussion linked which I have just carefully re-read. It contains no such conclusion. Fæ (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, why no administrator is looking at such issues properly. It was a lenghty discussion with no consensus at all. When there were strong doubts for the source for so many years, why is the source used as if it was reliable? --Wangond (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, particularly the final section, after which no further objections were raised. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because the data gathered by these sites doesn't meet necessarily current Western standards doesn't mean this information isn't notable. Suitable disclaimers are and should be used. This is not uncommon, e.g., pre-20th century newspaper circulation information in the U.S. was not subject to auditing, but we still use that data. Boxofficeindia.com has been cited by mainstream news sources in India and elsewhere in that region[1] (e.g., The Indian Express citing its figures [2]). So has IBOS Network.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Shahid. Ridiculous reasonings are being given in face of the reliability of BoxOfficeIndia. Sometimes I really doubt some of these nominators as to do they really do a reliability check? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinion, however as the nominator that you appear to doubting the competency of, I think that you might benefit by noting that the point of this AfD is that it is not possible to do a reliability check on BoxOfficeIndia as they are a primary source. As has been stated several times, there is no reliable independent data available. Should you be aware of a reliable source that meets WP:V please enlighten the rest of us. Fæ (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, lemme see, so you are saying that this PS is bad, even when third party sources are validating its reliability? Sorry, your nomination is fundamentally flawed. There are zillions of sources, who are actually primary as well as being third party sometimes. Billboard, Rolling Stone, MTV, OCC are all primary sources as well as third party sources. I'm citing them as examples because there are again zillions of third party sources validating their reliability. As I said, moot point to doubt BOI's reliability when that is actually validated as stated above. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-constructive validation based on sources that copy the primary material is not the same thing as a reliability check. Many people may have their primary testimonies of alien abduction much quoted in the press, this does not make publishing an analytical breakdown of alien abduction numbers by country and year based on press interest suddenly encyclopaedic or statistically reliable. Fæ (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Boxofficemojo (a primary source) is used as the major reference in List of highest-grossing films, then why can't BOI be used? --- Managerarc^talk 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that Boxofficemojo uses actual published accounts of box office receipts (see [3]) whereas BoxOfficeIndia makes up their own estimates with no claim of using actual box office receipts or respectively verifying against later publications of box office receipts (as explained in the nomination). Fæ (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both websites are somewhat based on estimates. If you see carefully, Boxofficemojo about page also states that "the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate" and "when daily data is not available, estimates are used and are based on weekend and weekly data and historical box office trends." Since BOI mentions that "actual numbers are rarely given out by producers and distributors" hence it is impossible to calculate the real gross revenue of a film upto the last decimal unit, so estimates are considered close to the actual gross. --- Managerarc^talk 14:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not quite the story here. One website is entirely creative estimates with no published data or a repeatable process of calculation, the other uses some calculated statistical estimates to flesh out trends based on published accounts and some other numbers are calculated with published data without any estimation needed. Fæ (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Shahid.Hillcountries (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note on probable copyvio - Based on a discussion at the MCQ noticeboard it appears that mass reposting data from BOI as used in this article is a copyright violation as BOI restricts re-use to non-commercial purposes only. I would like this issue considered an extension of the nomination rationale. Fæ (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - wrong. First, it's not really a discussion as such, considering you are the one who started it and there is only one reply from an editor who did not really approve of your claim. Secondly, if you look at the table, there isn't really mass reposting data. It is definitely not cut and pasted. The table is designed in an altogether different layout, with several columns in the original site being omitted and several others being added. Moreover, the same could be said about List of highest-grossing films. And to sum it up, the original source is perfectly acknowledged throughout the article. Thank you, Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Regardless of what BOI claims, what makes you think that box office figures are copyrightable? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Statistics are not copyrightable, however original estimates (as described by BOI) are not statistics but creative analysis and so when re-pasting entire tables of their data (rather than, say, specifically quoting which film BOI rank as third by box-office income in 2008) we are re-publishing their original research as commercially reusable (as per the notice on every Wikipedia page). The fact the BOI specifically restrict their website to non-commercial use in their terms and conditions is hard to overlook. Note, the figures are not actually "box office figures" as these do not exist, the figures being requoted are more clearly described as estimates with unknown accuracy. Fæ (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, those who know the most accurate earnings of a film are the film's producers, and they are not a reliable source. More than truth, there's attribution, which WP works according to. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering only the copyright question and not the other merits of the article, I believe that if the article is retained it will need to be much abbreviated for copyright concerns unless we can determine that these figures actually are "fact" and not opinion, as the links to the source website suggest they are. If the figures reflect consistent statistics that would be generated by anyone in compiling such a list, they are factual. If they are based on estimates weighting various market factors but ultimately relying on subjectivity (which factors to consider and in what weight, for instance), then the information is copyrightable and we must utilize it in accordance with fair use and WP:NFC. In that case, we might reasonably include a brief listing in a stand-alone article (top 5 or 10 or what have you, as we do with the subjectively generated Forbes list of billionaires or The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time), and articles on individual films can easily sustain references to the estimate for that particular film. Including extensive listings in one article, though, is akin to including album covers in a discography. What may be more easily defensible in individual articles is not quite so easy to defend when gathered in one place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of trimming the article as in the examples above rather than deleting it completely. Say reduce the number in the top list from 30 films to 10 or 15; keep the yearly and throughout history tables, but delete the monthly and openings tables. Make it even more clear in the text that these are estimates, not hard facts. I would be happy to work on this. Maybe not what everyone wants, but sometimes compromise is necessary. BollyJeff || talk 18:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: How this article even nominated? this is an only Wikipedia's article which is related to such important subject for Indian(Hindi) cinema and sources are enough reliable to mention here on Wikipedia. Bill william compton (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thousands of articles on Wikipedia are about Indian and Hindi cinema, see Category:Cinema of India and WP:ILIKEIT. By definition, none of them depends on this list for their existence. Thanks Fæ (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- First of all you should think before mentioning your opinion; i never said there is any shortage of articles related to Indian cinema. Second, this article is not a mine personal like, i voted for retaining this, because this article is unique in itself, except it there is no such article which compiles the data related to highest-grossing films of Indian/Hindi cinema. Bill william compton (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your opinion and personal advice. You might find WP:ATA useful for future deletion discussions. Fæ (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that the sources provided for information in this list are official and accurate. Box-office statistics reported in the media in Indian cinema are highly estimated. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:VERIFY The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. That's policy. If the sources are considered reliable sources, then that's it. Dream Focus 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why you believe the two sources named in the nomination meet WP:V, in particular how do they meet the requirement for an article to be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when as far as I can determine these sources clearly state that the facts cannot be checked or determined as accurate? Fæ (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright content There's surely no issue with the tables: they're simple data presented in an unimaginative format, and there's no real difference between copying these tables and copying the telephone book. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Moonriddengirl explained, the difference is creative content. The estimates are created using an unclear process of market intelligence and experience, they are not simple measurements, calculations or names in a phone book. Fæ (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if these are simple statistics, there's no issue, but so far as has been determined at this point, they are not: they are educated guesses and hence subjective. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(On only the copyright issue): The "copying the telephone book" argument is only relevant if the data was used anew, not about how the data was obtained and presented. The overall outcome was about the data itself, not the formatting, being copyrightable. The Ruling of the Court needs to be understood, not just blindly read. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that, in the United States, the sine qua non of copyright is originality, and the "originality" factor is not set that high. Information (data) from the phone book can be used, and re-arranged, perhaps only listing the business that are located in a downtown area, and presented in a new book called "Business in the Downtown Area". That book *can* be copyrighted and a person can not simply cut and paste, or reproduce, that book and call it their own simply because the underlying data may be considered "free". One must also keep in mind that Wikipedia tends to follow US Law, although other countries laws are surely considered: for example European Union law has certain database rights. In Australia a phone book can be copyrighted, but this copyright protection only covers the unique arrangement of data within the compilation, however, not the data itself. In any case one of the issues behind this discussion is the material may have been cut and pasted, which by US law (and Wikipedia policy) is not allowed. Another issue is the information provided is *not* normally publicly available, as such it may be original data subject to other conditions. The wider issue that comes into play is a "fair use" issue (If this is original information put together by a commercial news outlet, which IBOS is, and is sold to be used does Wikipedia's use, by not paying, fail our policy? The answer is "yes" if we are using all of that data in a cut and paste situation) which needs to be addressed elsewhere. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article has been the source of all Box Office figures for Bollywood films for years. Its reliability is, I accept, a little hazy. But the website publishing these figures (BoxOfficeIndia.Com) have been referred to repeatedly in various other highly-reputed sources such as magazines, international newspapers and the like. Also, like some of the other editors pointed out, deleting this list would mean having to remove box office figures from each and every Bollywood film article in Wikipedia - a task which will waste thousands of hours for a futile and incorrect end. What I cannot understand is why the deletion of THIS particualr article has come up so late, when any problems should have been fixed much before. Removing this article would mean diverting editorial efforts to absolutely useless tasks which can be used for much more useful and helpful work. Plus, the "reliability" factor is baseless. The figures are educated guesses, and are well within the frameworks of fact. After all, these figures are obtained from on-site people, so the figures used cannot be absolutely unreliable ankit is bc bc bc. AnkitBhatt^{Talk to me!!}_LifEnjoy 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is about this stand-alone list article which mass re-pastes and ranks unverifiable estimates created by the organizations/websites mentioned in the nomination. Individual quotes of estimates are a different issue and there is no suggestion or recommendation in this AfD that all such quotes would be removed from other articles or to blacklist the websites cited. Fæ (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starlight Registry[edit]

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

The article lacks independent sources verifying that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The cited sources are press releases, and I was unable to find any appropriate sources to add with my own search. Prod removed by anonymous editor with the comment, 'I have added in more sources, information about Sarah Rigos (the founder)'s background and position within the wedding industry, and what is so unique about Starlight Registry,' but none of the added sources are independent sources discussing the subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this wedding registry in reliable sources to establish notability. All that is out there is press releases, directory entries and blogs. -- Whpq 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No coverage at all found from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:00, 14 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) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Xtras[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. Its author claims that he has made significant advances in the design of diver propulsion vehicles: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Dive Xtras Speedy deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Delete, doesn't really assert notability, the single cite is rather odd and the whole tone is promotional. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, per the discussion below I'm still not sure if all the sources being in industry specific media passes WP:CORP. However, there is plenty of coverage in those media and with the change of tone I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned in passing: [4], [5] but not significant. The Tahoe Benchmark site listed in the references in the article is an attempt to measure the performance of dive scooters against claims made by the manufacturer as explained in this article. However, I can find no information about James Flenner, the person responsible for the benchmarks, to indicate that this person is an expert in his field. And in any case, being included in a benchmark doesn't indicate notability. -- Whpq 14:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions - Hi, I have edited the article to hopefully focus on what is important (sorry for previous version, I am new to Wikipedia). To technical divers Dive Xtras has played a significant role in DPV development and as such deserves a brief mention when searching the name. -- Wreckdiver08 10:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No Change, as an article it's better. Less promotional tone and slightly better citations (Divernet one isn't loading through Wayback?). But all they realy show is that it exists, and there is still nothing that asserts notability.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - the URLs for the added references were not formatted properly. I have corrected them and the Wayback link should now work. That link is actually a decent source providing a review of the product as part of a comparison between different products. If there are more of these that would help establish notability. The second reference added is to a military publication that only mentions the device in passing. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the fix. Definitely the best cite there, but I think per WP:CORP this isn't enough on its own. In particular (copied for benefit of article author) A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. and Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.. I think a single review in a diver specific magazine trips up on both of these. But it's still a good cite and could be used to flesh out the article if notabillity can be established through additional citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Substantial coverage in specialist magazines (in this case, dive related magazines) is certainly appropriate for establishing the notability of company making dive equipment. We have one. We would need more. -- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not my read of WP:CORP, I think a Dive magazine is 'of limited interest', i.e. only people in the field are interested in it (the magazine), and for notabillity it needs to show a wider audience (the preceeding sentence is The source's audience must also be considered) i.e non-specialist media. I'm not going to make a big deal of it mind you, if a couple more similar citations could be found from other similar magazines, I'd probably give it the benefit of the doubt. Something in mainstream media would be a slam dunk though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hi, I added some more links to Dive Xtras in the media, The Advanced Diver article and Girls On Speed article appear quite relevant as they focus on discussions about the product. The Pulse is a published book in which a Dive Xtras product is used. And the Monkey Diving article, Underwater Magazine paragraph, X-Ray Magazine article show coverage but they are not specifically about the company. -- Wreckdiver08 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am changing to a weak keep based on some of the added sources. I have removed the media section as trivia and grasping at straws for sources. However the Advanced Diver article, and X-Ray magazine article that have been added are sufficient to push me over to a weak keep. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Career domains in computer science[edit]

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

Article tries to sound like an instructional article on jobs available in Computer Science. Users can reasonable infer jobs from main Computer Science article. No valid citations and no editors have made significant contributions since 2007. Inomyabcs (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unstructured, unencyclopaedic, no refs (the single cite is dead) and smells of WP:OR or WP:NOTHOWTO. Looks like a new editor had an idea in good faith a few years ago but its lost its way and ended up a dead end. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per nom and ThePaintedOne. As far as "career domains" go, it's amazingly narrow in scope (not even a mention of web development.) IT really doesn't mention anything not covered in the List of software engineering topics or Outline of computer science#Vocations, which is all that is really necessary on the topic. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huh??? EEng (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it might be possible to write an article on this subject, this isn't going to go anywhere. —Ruud 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no careers in computer science. They hire you when you've got no experience and when you get to around 32 they replace you with somebody with no experience. This article is hypothetical. You could replace the article with the career of a hen in a battery hen house since there would be little relative difference. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At best it's almost entirely incomplete and unsourced. Concentrating on the stuff that's present, rather than missing, it's tangential and unreadable. The only way to turn it into an encyclopaedia article - and I'm not sure we need one under this title, there's other coverage elsewhere - would be to start from scratch. bobrayner (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cabral (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Contested PROD. PROD removed with comment: "the fact that one of the top 20 leagues in the world is not fully pro indicates only that our guidelines are bankrupt, not that this player is less notable than a League 2 player" Whether or not this is the fact needs to be taken up at WP:FOOTY talk, and the current guidelines need to be followed until any change occurs. Ravendrop (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I stand by my removal of the PROD tag. It flies in the face of common sense to say that any player who has played for a few minutes at the fourth level of English football should automatically be considered notable, but that a player who has played at the top level of Chilean football shouldn't be given the same treatment just because somebody has found a technicality of the league regulations that means that there may possibly be a few players in that league who are not full-time professionals. It appears that the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Should we use common sense? agrees with that position. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Phil Bridger is missing the point - there is no evidence that this player has actually played a game, regardless of the status of the league, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I've now added a reference which does verify his having played for several seasons in the Chilean top flight, which I found by clicking on the interwiki link to the corresponding Spanish article. According to Google, he seems to get plenty of mentions in the Spanish-language press, if anyone had the time and interest to go through them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (after edit conflict) That is not the point made by the nominator to which I was replying, which was "Fails WP:nfooty as Chile Premier is not fully pro". I see that a source has now been added to the article confirming that this player has played in the top Chilean league, and plenty more such sources can be found here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has now been improved and I'm satisfied with his guy's notability. Giant Snowman 17:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that confirmation has been provided that this player has played in a world-class league whose regulations allow for the possibility of a few part-timers playing in it. If I had missed the point in my earlier comment I would have presented it with a bolded "keep" rather than "comment". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable football player (he scored 7 goals in the Chilean top flight last season) and I've expanded the article slightly to incorporate a few references. Article still needs work, but reliable sources appear to be readily available. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Different Beat Tour[edit]

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

Unremarkable concert tour. No indication on notability, fails WP:GNG. PROD removed without comment. Ravendrop (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable or needed beyond a single line mention on the band page.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where We Belong Tour[edit]

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

Unremarkable concert tour. No indication on notability, fails WP:GNG. PROD removed without comment. Ravendrop (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable or needed beyond a single line mention on the band page.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By Request Tour[edit]

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

Unremarkable concert tour. No indication on notability, fails WP:GNG. PROD removed without comment. Ravendrop (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable or needed beyond a single line mention on the band page.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2-21-11[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was (and still is) Unremarkable promo that doesn't fit any CSD criteria. The PROD tag was sitting on the article for approximately 6 days. The article is not encyclopedic at all IMHO, and is one of many non-notable WWE promos. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable advert, only possible notability would be if the 'mystery person' turned out to be something truly spectacular, but right now that is WP:CRYSTAL and even if they were the required article wouldn't be about the promo but the event.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indepedent notability whatsoever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly not notable enough for its own article. This sort of thing can go in the wrestler's article once the identity is known and can be reliably sourced, but this is certainly not enough to build an entire article upon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why are we even discussing this? This should have been a speedy, it is completely not notable.--WillC 06:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't fit any of the CSD criteria, and the PROD was contested, so AFD was the last option. ArcAngel (talk) ) 06:58, 14 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. m.o.p 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wood (Mormon pioneer)[edit]

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

Artical has been tag as failing "notability" and "single source" since January 2010. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix - So after some research, and a false start where I confused him with a whaling ship of the same era (^_^) - he was an early settler of Bountiful and had Wood's Cross named after him after being the first settler there in 1849, there's a bit on him at the bottom of page 26 here, in 1863 his family began having meetings regarding the church and he is the focus of the Conscience more than Comfort chapter found here. - ManicSpider (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as the user above, I've found a few refs (copied to talk page for now) which seem to assert notability. I am impressed that someone's put a 'citation needed' tag on a reference though!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Expand or Delete - I'm all for keeping any article that can be kept, but this article has been a two lines since 7 January 2010. I know nothing of this guy, so Unless ManicSpider or ThePaintedOne is willing to do the expanding then I still think the article should be deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've done a small improvement to the article. I've added in that he founded the town and it's named after him, along with two citations to that effect (I also back linked to this article from the town). Plus I added a citation for his birth info (it's an autobiography, so a primary source, but I think ok for basic info like that). Depending on how usable the autobiography is, there is lots more info there that could be included, but this really isn't my area so that's all I'm doing for now. However, I think there is enough now to assert notabillity and there are several sources whereas previously there was more or less nothing. It's still a stub and needs expanding, but being a stub is not a valid reason to delete.--ThePaintedOne 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to ThePaintedOne for making the expansion. I'd also just note that WP:SOFIXIT is available to everyone, and not just to people who argue Keep on AfDs. Also, nowhere in the AfD guidelines does it say that the article must be deleted unless someone makes any changes needed before the close of the AfD debate. Just sayin' - ManicSpider (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but expand. Refs show notability. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haj Baba Khan-e- Ardabili[edit]

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

Person from Persia was assassinated by somebody (not clear in article who and when), but happened during the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1905. No references. Text was written in another language and passed thru translator such as Google Translate, therefore extremely poorly written. Full of peacock terms. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. The only GBooks hits are from Books LLC, which publishes copies of Wikipedia articles. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DrPhosphorus (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: low ghits in Persian search result, nothing found on BBC Persian site. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:16, 14 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} 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Cricket World Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesnt comply with Wikipedia:Plus-one ashwinikalantri ^talk 21:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice essay. Keep per the policy of WP:CRYSTAL which states at point 1 - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The ICC have announced that it is scheduled to take place in the UK in 2019, and paradoxically, if it doesn't happen, it will be even more notable. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has sufficient citations for what is said. The event is notable in all countries that play cricket and is almost certain to take place. I agree with Lugnuts that if it were to be moved or cancelled, that would be a very big story.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tournament and its location have been offically announced. If it were to be cancelled or moved or postponed it would be a major shock. MC Rocks (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Sphilbrick. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spydron[edit]

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

Unsourced obscure Transformers character with poor notability and no third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This character isn't obscure, it's a hoax article someone made up. Mathewignash (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have tagged the article for speedy deletion per WP:G3. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European media[edit]

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

This is a collection of external links, without clear inclusion criteria, rather than an encyclopedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a link farm. -- Whpq 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Whpq. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:10, 14 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vaughan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of a research student with no evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria for academics. Previous AfD in 2005 was no-consensus and the article has not improved since then. AllyD (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:PROF. I've no idea how this article has survived this long. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't satisfy any criterion of notability, absurd article.Bill william compton (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Would seem to meet WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 as an article about a real person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Tried to check for his publications via their website but got a '403 Forbidden' error. And this is the School of Informatics? Qwfp (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has one 23-citation paper in ALife 2004 and that's it. It's very rare for a student to already be notable for his research and he doesn't seem to be an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Appears to have no publications in WoS. No sources. Created by IP in Brighton, very possibly the subject, so this likely started out as nothing more than a vanity page. Notability criteria have tightened significantly since the last AfD of this article – by our current standards, this one is an uncontroversial delete. Kudos to nom for bringing this up. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Foliage Tour[edit]

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

This tour does not seem to demonstrate any inherent notability to warrant a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbarrybush (talk • contribs) 22 January 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Alanbarrybush (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's up in the air for me. Performing at Carnegie Hall is pretty prestigious. I did a brief G News search, couldn't find much, but if more sources are found, I'll switch to keep. CTJF83 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed the Carnegie Hall show is in very high regard. It's just that I saw a listing on eBay for some promo photos and a program for the Carnegie Hall show. It came with an "itinerary" and the seller mentioned that it was part of the "Fall Foliage Tour," starting with the Caravan of Dreams rehearsals and ending at the Santa Fe Downs. Because the source is on eBay, I wouldn't call that a reliable source. --User:Alanbarrybush talk 17:13, 02 February 2011

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Yorke[edit]

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

Previously contested PROD, no explanation given though. Yorke as a footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage past the odd WP:NTEMP type stuff (match reports and general name checking in articles etc). --Jimbo^[online] 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points raised by Mr. Jimbo and Mr Snowman.--Echetus Xe 23:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beryl (window manager). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquamarine (window decorator)[edit]

Aquamarine only existed when Beryl did. Now it has been fully replaced by the KDE Window Decorator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabzzap (talk • contribs) 2011/01/09 21:58:02

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least if this is the only concern; by that rationale we would not have United Soviet Socialist Republics or audio cassette. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 13:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beryl (window manager). It's unreferenced and OR-ish. If a reliable source appears, it can be merged instead. --Pnm (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's rationale isn't a valid reason for deletion, but given the general lack of sources I support a redirect to Beryl (window manager), as suggested by Ron Ritzman. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:GNG and redirect to Beryl (window manager). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources. Only one has been presented here and it's borderline. However, there are no arguments for deletion aisde from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knut Selberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced biography whose works and involvement in those works are unclear. Unable to find reliable 3rd party references. Without references to verify involvement in listed projects he does not appear to fit notability criteria per WP:CREATIVE. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Novickas (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has a personal entry at Structurae ([6]) and is mentioned in the NYTimes for his work on the Leonardo Bridge [7]. Given those one would suppose he has a lot of reliable source coverage in Norway too, altho I can't easily assess the results. But I think those two alone suffice for notability. Novickas (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per novickas.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Biallas[edit]

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

He is best known for being the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Special Entertainment Events a company that isn't notable enough to have it's own article? Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guy is a promoter, and the article is unsurprisingly promotional, but a Google search confirms that he is somewhat notable. Scrub the article of everything spammy. Improve through normal editing rather than deletion. The red link for his company is not a reason to delete - an article about the company can be written in the future if the company is notable, and Biallas' notability predates founding of his company. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's subject appears to pass WP:GNG. That being said I concur this article requires a major rewrite in order to pass WP:ADVERTISEMENT. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The author appears to be a single purpose account whose only articles appear to be this one and the two articles about the "virtual worlds" the subject in question created; this makes me wonder if this doesn't fail the various promotional/self-promo restrictions here (WP:SPIP, WP:COI, WP:AUTO). Also the sources consist of pretty much promotional material and press releases. A google search reveals that for the most part the only results are the aforementioned promotional material, profiles on various social networking websites, celebrity/gossip sites about one opening gala in which he was involved, and unrelated persons. Only about 20 websites actually about him, the rest are unrelated. I'm pretty sure it fails the significant coverage, reliable, and secondary source requirements of the WP:GNG. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No depth of coverage in the given sources. If so, I'm happy to be wrong. For instance, the USAToday article mentions Biallas three times. That isn't enough for GNG or BIO. tedder (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Golden Team[edit]

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

Quite simply, the article lacks the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" needed for retention. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The group has enough notability (14,000 google results). The article can be expanded in the future (Iaaasi (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

See WP:GHITS for why that's an invalid rationale. Please show actual independent sources that can be used to expand the article, which has been sitting unreferenced for 9 months. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two sources (Iaaasi (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per the nomination. I trust the judgement of Biruitorul on this one. If this team were really widely known and notable as a "Golden Team" he as a Romanian editor would surely know about this. Hobartimus (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subjective and weak argument. Notability is not evaluated after a certain editor's knowledge. I don't think Romanian Golden Team is less notable than for example football players from the sixth English divison that owe articles here with no problems(Iaaasi (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand Romanian but some gnews hits appear [8]. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifood[edit]

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

Website not sufficiently notice by reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It looks very useful, but we can't cover it until it receives wider coverage. Move the sourced info to a related article Shii (tock) 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep – nomination was based on a vandalized version of the page which has been reverted. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee[edit]

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

Unclear purpose. Nem1yan (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been filed under speedy deletion but I clicked the incorrect link. -Nem1yan (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrell Casey[edit]

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

non notable college athlete WuhWuzDat 18:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the top prospects for the 2011 NFL Draft, the USC Trojans MVP this past season and was a Pac 10 first team selection this year. He is clearly notable.--Yankees10 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with this story in the LA Times and this interview. WP:BEFORE asks you to see if independent sources exist prior to nominating for deletion and the nom clearly did not do this.--TM 19:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Danger 14:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Danger 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article need expansion but can be retain.Bill william compton (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant widespread non-trivial coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. The nominator has withdrawn and there are no other "delete" opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to nature[edit]

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

Procedurally completing good-faith nomination on behalf of Lisnabreeny (talk · contribs); rationale left here was "Article is completely political, based on private blogs, at odds with another properly sourced article on the same subject".

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss content issues on the talk page, including any possible redirection if this is covered adequately elsewhere. This is pretty clearly a notable topic that we should cover, with this title leading the reader to where it is covered, so any issues are with the content and how our information on this and related subjects should be organised, which are not matters for a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No valid reason given for AfD nom. I've added two book citations, both by professional philosophers, the latter of which (Flew's) goes into some detail about the common use of this fallacy. 94.194.86.160 (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both references are to popular publications, not philosophical or academic texts and contain no citations. Popular publications are judged by and primarily written for public opinion and can routinely contain maveric claims. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~

Keep It would be best if the appeal to nature could somehow be impartialy explored here and i am hopeful that is possible with the extra interest which this deletion proposal has begged - perhaps clumsily and at times too robustly. Thankyou for your patience and valuable attention. Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable phrase, often connected with 'naturalistic fallacy' But unlike naturalistic fallacy, no definitive philosophical sources exist for it. So the article is based on populist sources and carries populist arguments as philosophical ones. The article is not wp:philosophy, it is blog/pop philosophy. Expert review of it is what is needed. Lisnabreeny (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What expert review can take place if the article is deleted? You don't have to be an expert in philosophy to see that "strong delete" and "expert review of it is what is needed" are logically incompatible statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, i mean expert review should be able to determine if the article should be deleted. An amature vote on the matter may just perpetuate a modern myth.. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I got to the article from a link elsewhere on the web today; that indicates it's useful. Even if it's a popular idea rather than one from people with Philosophy PhDs, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on it. However, I don't think that's the case; I think it has relevant formal meaning that editors just haven't found the right sources for yet, as many of those sources may be old enough to appear only in physical books. Warren Dew (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has relevant formal meaning going back hundreds of years of use in philosophical works. Just google scholar 'appeal to nature' you can find endless instances of term used quite neutrally to refer to arguments which make in some way 'an appeal to nature', similar to 'appeal to fact' or 'appeal to reason...' these are common phrases of the philosophical lexicon. There has never even been a philosophical argument that appeals to nature are inherently or most often fallacious. There is no source for such argument it because it is an absurd proposition. Nature is far too complex and large a concept, for all arguments which might be said to appeal to it to be ruled out of consideration. Not even Hume came close to claiming this. He argued how appeals to nature can be made fallaciously - insubstantially, that bare, 'unsystematic' appeals to nature commit fallacy, (as do most unsystematic appeals) but never that the kind of argument itself is fallacious. In my review below i included a direct quote from Principia Ethica confirming the validity of a particular kind of appeal to nature.

wp:philosophy should not be parroting absurdity just because it has somehow gained popularity. And people should not be getting directed here by sites claiming that this absurdity is 'useful' (Useful for what?) Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless the first paragraph can be backed up by citations from an established logic or philosophy textbook or to papers published in major philosophy journals. If appeal to nature is an accepted fallacy like Arguementum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority) there should be no problem finding the citations.--Logicalgregory (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not delete articles about notable terms ("endless instances"...) just because a paragraph needs to be rewritten. On Feb-8 I edited the first paragraph to specify fallacy of relevance because it was somewhat ambiguous, possibly due to the general confusion with naturalistic fallacy. It does not say (and never has said) it's a logical fallacy or even a faulty generalization/fallacy of defective induction (like argumentum ad verecundiam, ironically, an "appeal to authority") which “reaches a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. This inductive fallacy is any of several errors of inductive inference”. I specifically clarified that it's an informal fallacy (as opposed to a logical fallacy) because, as the article says, in the normative sense it “may resemble an appeal to tradition”.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The popular use of the term regarding anything from vegan cat food to all-natural cigarettes has been made clear, I think, and this is not contradictory to the bulk of its history, which was hardly "neutral", (whatever that means, compare lumen naturalis [lumen naturalis rationis] in medieval philosophy/theology). As pointed out by the sophists, it can be used to argue toward thesis or antithesis with equal facility in the normative sense... I didn't have time to edit the third paragraph on... and I didn't have time to get into it with a new user who, assuming WP:AGF, didn't seem to fully grasp WP:NPOV and WP:NPA... but once the dust settles from wild polemics like: “I believe this page is so bad, that no self respecting wp:philosophy editor will attempt to defend it, even if they were politicaly inclined to”, [9] (followed up, no less, by the expert request [10][11] and much insistence directed at the WP Philosophy project, [12] etc.), I do intend to sort out the Moore/Hume confusion and add a section on ancient usage that expands, for example, on the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica (not a "blog", Lisnabreeny seems to be referring to the external links):

“One of the most famous doctrines associated with the Sophistic movement was the opposition between nature and custom or convention in morals. It is probable that the antithesis did not originate in Sophistic circles but was rather earlier; but it was clearly very popular and figured largely in Sophistic discussions. The commonest form of the doctrine involved an appeal from conventional laws to supposedly higher laws based on nature. Sometimes these higher laws were invoked to remedy defects in actual laws and to impose more stringent obligations; but usually it was in order to free men from restrictions unjustifiably imposed by human laws that the appeal to nature was made. In its extreme form the appeal involved the throwing off of all restraints upon self-interest and the desires of the individual (e.g., the doctrine of Callicles in Plato's Gorgias that might, if one possesses it, is actually right), and it was this, more than anything else, that gave support to charges against the Sophists of immoral teaching. On other occasions the terms of the antithesis were reversed and human laws were explicitly acclaimed as superior to the laws of nature and as representing progress achieved by human endeavour. In all cases the laws of nature were regarded not as generalized descriptions of what actually happens in the natural world (and so not like the laws of physics to which no exceptions are possible) but rather as norms that people ought to follow but are free to ignore. Thus the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct.
To Greeks this appeal was not very novel. It represented a conscious probing and exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true source for norms of conduct. If Callicles in Plato's Gorgias represents a position actually held by a living Sophist when he advocates free rein for the passions, then it was easy for Plato to argue in reply that the nature of man, if it is to be fulfilled, requires organization and restraint in the license given to the desires of particular aspects of it; otherwise the interests of the whole will be frustrated. Both Plato and Aristotle, in basing so much of their ethics on the nature of man, are only following up the approach begun by the Sophists.”

Logicalgregory, if you feel its stronger, in fact, than an informal fallacy, then by all means find appropriate references to that effect, but this topic is certainly not within the sole purview of philosophy.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were not about an appeal to nature, they were about citations. --Logicalgregory (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lisnabreeny, you may ~~strikeout~~ what you've previously written on this page and make corrections in a new comment below it. You may not simply rewrite it as you've been doing. For permissible rewrites on article talk pages, please see WP:REFACTOR. Also, please read WP:MINOR. I think you'd make a fantastic editor if you decide to stay and, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be frustrated with the slow response from the WP community at large. Please understand that these things can take a long time to sort out and comments in various places directed toward the philosophy project won't help. Please be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP and understand that you have received feedback but "holding out" for a so-called "expert" whom you're certain would support your opinion... well, that's not likely to achieve the goal. You should be aware that if the page is deleted, you cannot simply make a new one consistent with your outline below. I think you have some valid points, but WP is not going to inform everyone they're mistaken, so to speak. At the end of the day, people will need to draw such conclusions for themselves. In general, a firm commitment to WP:CONSENSUS, (with lots of spare-time and patience), is how to make a significant and lasting impact on WP content.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Elf - I made minor unattributed edits to improve readability, nothing which altered the context of any responses, and nothing i would wish to strikeout. You are very welcome to restore anything you would like to address.

Patience is always a great virtue, but i came to this article ~~over a month~~ 3 weeks ago (sorry feels longer)), and immediately requested attention, i increased and discussed requests with little response. I have read for dozens of hours philosophy texts to inform my position, and spent many hours in discussion, and researching and composing this deletion/review request. I have not been as inclined to wait for response as someone who is comfortable with the way the article is/was.

I did not become an editor to improve this page, i have been watching and contributing to various other pages for months. I do not have a great amount of spare time to contribute, but would like contribute occasionaly, hopefuly not alone in matters as contentious as this has been. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should (and do) apologise for my polemic.Lisnabreeny (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argument for deletion from Lisnabreeny[edit]

I believe the Philosophers of wp:philosophy should be seriously concerned about this article which has gained widespread faith and reproduction throughout the internet. Because what is being defamed here, is not just a person, or a company, but one of the most important concepts of our time - Nature.

In this age of great technological sophistication and decision - discussions which must essentialy involve appeals to nature (what may nature offer, confer, benefit? what it may not?) have never been more relevant. Yet heading the ranks of a populist attack on the concept, this article has been broadcasting that such discussions themselves are fallacious by subject.

People are sent to wp:philosophy, and read articles which cite it, and articles mirrored from it - to be informed that there is no need to investigate any merits or problems with arguments involving appeals to nature, the appearance of this argument type itself is ruled out of sense. Looking back through the edit history, this has been wp:philosophy's position, for years now...

Modern Myth

After much searching for a valid argument or origin for the claim that 'appeals to nature' as commonly understood, or employed in philosophical work, are inherently fallacious, i am of the opininon that this claim is a modern myth, born of basic misunderstandings and circulated widely due to its apparent utility in certain debates.

It is my understanding that appeals to nature have not been argued in any philosophical works to be inherently or fundamentally invalid or fallacious. I have read dozens of uses of the term in the course of researching this deletion review, in published philosophical works, and not one of the uses supposes that term implies fallacious argument.

Even the most critical, somewhat ambiguous work of Moore's Principia Ethica pg221 states [[13]]

...of the arguments commonly used in Theodicies; no such argument succeeds in justifying the fact that there does exist even the smallest of the many evils which this world contains. The most that can be said for such arguments is that, when they make appeal to the principle of organic unity, their appeal is valid in principle.

In another example philosophical text, the term is used repeatedly, descriptively, yet no use of it confers fault on it:

Eudaimonism and the Appeal to Nature in the Morality of Happiness: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 1995,Johm M Cooper Princeston university.[[14]]

This first appeal to nature is, therefore, an appeal to nature as benevolent, and therefore to the instincts it provides animals with as being ones that it is for their own good to act upon. It is nature as normative, not nature as a source of inescapabilities and unalterabilities, that the Stoics first appeal to. There is a second appeal to nature, too, and this one goes a great deal farther outside the 'ethical' as conceived by Annas in an effort to reach normative conclusions.

- We could fill pages here with non-presumptive uses of the term in actual philosophical works. These uses are anyones to search and review.

What the current page needs to defend itself against this charge -that it is charging fallacy on the simple appearance of an appeal to nature, without any actual support from philosophical work, is at the very least to begin with, one clear dismissive use in a suitable philos. text.

An article for appeal to nature would ideally refer to how this term has been defined in philosophy. However it has not been defined in philosophy, or at least neither i or the preceeding authors have discovered a definition. The term is often confused with Moore's description of naturalistic fallacy, but Moore's work does not support this confusion (not only refering to the previous quote).

What is wrong now, is that this rumoured fallaciousness is being carried throughout the web as the definition of the term, by unthinking search engines and by understandably misinformed people, who are being told by sources with no editorial standards and wp:philosophy (most prominently), that this invented fallacy is an actual philosophical concept. (google define:appeal to nature)

The current state of the article is such that it cannot be improved, it needs adjudicated here and deleted so as not to be edit warred back into place. It should ideally be replaced with a proper explaination of the term - a primitive example draught of which i include here for the review:Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Softening of the existing article mid review[edit]

The position of the existing article has moved to the claim that all appeals to nature are fallacies of relevance / informal fallacies. This is telling as there is no attempted substantiation or reference that all appeals to nature have been shown to fail to address the issue in question (as per definition of fallacy of relevance.

In its current state the article still displays an unrestrained range of political examples, each of which is a complex case yet presented as a simple 'appeal to nature fallacy' - a failure to address the issue in question.

The article still contains no references or citations of philosophical source which establish ,or even appear to presume that appeals to nature are inherently fallacious. Lisnabreeny (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example Replacement[edit]

Example draught article (quite irreconcilable with the current)

This article relates to appeal to nature in philosophical understanding of the term, for other uses of appeal to nature see disambiguation.

In philosophical works, an appeal to nature is a type of argument which involves an evaluation of a natural property or natural characteristic of an object involved in the argument. Of the type "fish live in water so fish should stay in water" or "people have not wings so they should not fly" When the value placed on the object by the appeal to nature cannot be substantiated by evidence and reasoning, the argument can be said to be a naturalistic fallacy or fallacy of relevance.

Appeal to nature in Philosophy

In modern philosophical works, appeals to nature are routinely identified and most often identified neutrally, without presumption of error. There are no well known academic texts to resolve the matter of the logical merit of an 'appeal to nature' itself, educational resources differ on the terms status, normaly treating the term under the heading of Humes concept of naturalistic fallacy, and often including cautionary commentary eg [[15]].

it is highly uncharitable to charge anyone who advances the sorts of arguments to which Moore alludes as having committed a logical fallacy. Rather, charity demands that we interpret such arguments as enthymatic, and usually this is easy enough. For example, we should understand ‘X is pleasant, therefore X is good’ as an enthymeme whose suppressed premise is ‘Whatever is pleasant is good’. Nor must the non-naturalist even quarrel with such a suppressed premise.

Appeal to nature in popular culture

With interpretation of Humes work "Principia Ethica" 1901 which focuses on the question: "what is the nature of the evidence, by which alone any ethical proposition can be proved or disproved, confirmed or rendered doubtful." (viii preface) and includes specific criticism on common appeals to nature and the related 'naturalistic fallacy': the idea that all appeals to nature are inherently fallacious arguments, has many adherents in recent popular culture[][][][][].

Some populist sources champion the idea that appeals to nature are invalid, to the degree of holding up advertisements such as "healthy natural food" as examples of fallacy. It should be noted to respect how philosophical concepts can be easily misapplied to informal media, that product advertisements of any kind, never allude to metaphysical completeness. In fact advertising terms such as "healthy natural food" or "great tasting meals" may not even constitute a single sentence, much less a philosophical clause.

Examples of appeal to nature in philosophical works:

Examples of informal appeals to nature in popular culture:

(The subject can attempt to substantiate their valuation of nature, they may or may not suceed in doing so, but the appeal is not inherently fallacious.)

Examples of argueably insubstantiable and fallacious appeals to nature:

(There is no attempt or concieveable reasoning to value nature, other than the presumption that natural should be better)

see also

naturalistic fallacy

appeal to tradition

naturalism

Ethical_non-naturalism

Lisnabreeny (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Walkinxyz[edit]

I think Lisnabreeny is making an important point with this suggestion, but I don't think his proposed revision accomplishes the required task. At the moment his suggestions sound like they are carrying on an argument with the previous version of the article, which I think it has to be agreed, is deeply prejudiced against "nature", and therefore not really worthy of Wikipedia (because of the prejudice).

What is ultimately needed is some explication of the various meanings of "nature" (part of the nature article), such that a discussion of evaluations of "rightness" or "correctness" in our reasoning, with respect to appeals to that concept, have some footing. What I am speaking of here is a priority of meaning to validity, or intelligibility to judgment, in the conceptual scheme of the article.

Nature is a concept that has deep, deep, maybe the deepest possible, of any possible semantic and normative roots. Any discussion of an "Appeal to nature" should acknowledge this, and also therefore acknowledge that a "claim" to naturalness is not just a claim to being right or correct, or even good, but is a claim that at its most basic, possesses some significance to human beings, and it should do this by saying something about what that significance is. At present, the article dismisses that significance, which is as empirical as the day is long.

Unfortunately, if the article is deleted, then we will miss an opportunity to clarify the meaning of this "appeal", which is obviously important enough that is getting attention here from around the web. If we delete it, that will leave a noticeable hole in the fabric of the web.

So what I suggest is that this article be deleted and replaced with a stub-class article that says something like this:

An appeal to nature is a form of argument that depends on an understanding of nature as a source of meaning and intelligibility for human beings, and which also appeals to the normative or ethical content of that concept for its cogency and/or validity.

And then maybe gives examples, but they are not really necessary at this stage.

Walkinxyz (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove the proposal to delete, since what Lisnabreeny has asked for it to be deleted, yet has since asked that an expert review and decide whether that should be done. If that was how he felt, then he should have asked an expert to put the template on (or not), rather than taking it upon himself.

In any case, a number of editors have weighed in on the matter, and the balance is that the article should be kept. However, in its previous form, the article was, as Lisnabreeny correctly points out, badly misleading (in terms of what an "appeal" is) and inexplicably prejudiced against "nature" to the point of being ammunition for baiting environmentalists.

However, I am enough of an "expert" to know that the idea of "appeal to nature" as a fallacy is not going to go away, and that it is important to the philosophical community and to Wikipedia's users and editors. In some cases, it obviously is a fallacy, so that section should be kept, but it has to be marked as a special instance of "appeal to nature" (and should definitely be cleaned up in accordance with Wikipedia's standards).

The fallacy of this article, that "appeal=fallacy" is dead. RIP.

Walkinxyz (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for you intrest Walkinxyz. I first requested assistance with this article i think ~5 3 weeks ago. Went and worked agreeably on nature (philosophy) with a helpful editor. Then I put this article up for deletion, by just adding a tag. At the end of its review time, there were no objections, but with advice from another editor, it was redirected to a section on Naturalistic_fallacy#Appeal_to_nature, which still concentrates on possible fallaciousness, but is fairly composed. Then this article was resurrected, so i put this larger deletion review up and tried to attract more attention for it. Honestly now, i do not know if the review must/should finish. I have ended up spending many hours reading texts on appeal to nature, and have a beginner understanding of the concept perhaps. And i would love to learn more about it. (With the lightest understanding i was aware that the concept itself, especially as put in the article, could not be fallacious. Through ad absurdum ~i think.) Anyway, i think it will take maturity and experience to untangle the situation between the concept, and its possible fallaciousness, and rumoured fallaciousness.

For myself i have not attempted to write the article, because i have a bias and not enough experience to do so. I think nature has much to offer and understand, yet i am a technician and an engineer. (Not quite a philosopher) Converse to the preceeding intro, i would write something like this:

The 'appeal to nature is' an argument of exceptional merit or an informal 'given'. Appeals to nature most often tend in someway to be perfectly true because of the existential, evolved, omnipresent properties of nature (one of the most important and scrutinised concepts in philosophy and the history of science)

Of course that would be ridiculous! But i think not harder to establish with pop sources than the previous intros.

On your belief that we could all try to make reasonable article here, and have a fair chance of success, i will do what is required to recall the deletion process. Perhaps someone can advise. ~~I should remove the appeal to wikipedia philosophy in the project talk page?~~(just noticed the discussion there) I would like to be able to refer to or backup this review before it disappears. Lisnabreeny (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, AfD discussions like this are permanent. You found several good WP:RS in amongst those pop sources. The article definitely needs more sources and there's a fair amount of what looks like off-the-cuff exposition (WP:OR) that needs to be replaced with sourced material like that.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no worries Machine Elf Lisnabreeny (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article should be retained. DS (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z AZ[edit]

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

Originally I thought this was copyvio; some parts may still be, but OK, some was merely copied from another Wikipedia article. I'm not sure where to start with it, hence AfD. Maybe some should merge to Dragon Ball, but then if there are no references, we can't, because we can't add unreferenced info. It isn't written in an encyclopaedic way; it is not neutral, fails any verifiability. I do not really know if the topic is notable or not; I cannot tell. Bringing it here to get help, sorting this out. (Might need histmerge stuff, too). Chzz ► 18:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged for speedy deletion as this is a very blatant hoax that's been around for years. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball AF, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon ball nsd, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball FO for other names that this same hoax has been posted under. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I agree with Farix that this is a blatant hoax. If there was a new Dragon Ball series, it would be very big news on anime websites, but there has been no such news anywhere. Calathan (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone Junction[edit]

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

unreferenced article about non notable defunct amusement park WuhWuzDat 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a regional attraction that has been covered in the area press over a long period of time. It's opening was noted. And coverage continues over its lifetime of operation: [16], [17], [18], [19]. Apparently, magician Lance Burton got started performing at the park. It's unusual characteristics has been noted in an unusual guidebook. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It ain't Coney Island, but as Whpq pointed out, it does pass our notability standards. An entity being defunct is not a reason for an article to be deleted. I dare the the nom to AfD Pan American World Airways with the same rationale. --Oakshade (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Significant enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 20:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is significant and passes standards. J.Rly (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Historic Inns[edit]

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

non notable company, refs include such gems as an iPhone app, and publications by the company founder. WuhWuzDat 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage found about this company or its website. Google News hits for the website [20] consist mostly of hotels bragging that iloveinns.com said something nice about them. The closest thing to independent coverage is a one-sentence mention in the Providence Journal. The parent company, American Historic Inns, gets a few mentions [21] but again nothing substantive. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and MelanieN. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Datacenter Providers[edit]

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

Contested PROD 6 weeks after deletion; violates WP:NOTDIR. Courcelles 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated it for the prod and the reasons still stand. List claims to show top 10 players in the datacenter outsourcing industry but also claims only to cover companies that operate in Europe. There is a list of "references" that do not support the entries. It just appears to be a random list. noq (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't provide much, but I cleaned up the problems and think it meets notability guidelines for lists. --Pnm (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why not just leave it to Category:Data centers. There is nothing additional here. noq (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not. --Pnm (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Pnm. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:13, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eardley Knollys[edit]

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

Had the corresponding article The Storran Gallery survived speedy deletion it might have lent this biography some credibility. However, as it stands the only reference is about an establishment that the subject of the article setup up with three other people. No other proof of notability is given. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little on Google. Seems to have been a modestly successful minor artist but nowhere near notable enough for his own encyclopaedia article. andy (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eardley Knollys was one of the most prominent art critics between WW1 and WW2. I am surprised that he is not in Wikipedia.Duncanogi (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the article to support this claim. Art critic, yes (he wrote a book about Alfred Wallis, after all) but "one of the most prominent"? References please. andy (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. Does not meet WP:ARTIST in any case. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Storran Gallery, which is better referenced and seems to still exist, unless i'm experiencing some very odd cache effects. What notability Knollys has seems to be for running the gallery, so I see no need for two separate articles. Qwfp (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works in the National Portrait Gallery (as subject), Art Fund etc. Also a member of a prominent "gay aesthete" set, as the The Times calls it. Failing that, redirect to the gallery, though redirecting that to him might be better. There are in fact a load of hits on google, 883 for "Eardley Knollys" and there will be much more in books, though probably more on his extensive social life, work for the National Trust, and art dealing than his painting per se. This ought to be on the LGBT list also. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod. His portrait is in the NPG. Extensive passing references add up to notability. The Guardian, in passing, calls him a "minor legend in British art" [22].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xiotech[edit]

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

The article has been thrice speedily deleted, first in 2006. It appears to have only one third-party source, which only asserts that the company has close ties to Seagate. However, corporations have no inhertied notability on Wikipedia. --hydrox (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sysop action. It would be nice if an administrator could restore the wiki-markup version of the article text from one of the speedily deleted versions for discussion, as the user-restored version is currently in raw HTML. --hydrox (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks, article is now in wiki-markup. --hydrox (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- hydrox (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- hydrox (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator: fails WP:CORP (has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.) --hydrox (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki article is within the guidelines and appropriate to the private company/ corporate related to the date storage community on Wikipedia.

Keep Per ThisPolicy, which states in these exact words - an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - that an article like this is perfectly acceptable. PolicyFavorsKeeping.

Examples:

Xiotech has posted relevant and supporting company and historical notes that are not available anywhere else online. Additionally, the notes and properly referenced content is intended to be informative and educational in nature. Incoming/ outgoing links aid searches and my become broken should this article be removed.

Finally the Xiotech article is a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 17:16, February 7, 2011

Delete ...and you are an SPA. EEng (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll break down your sources one by one:

[23]: A blog/wiki type source. Such Internet publications are not generally considered reliable primary sources for an article because they have little editorial oversight, resulting to a high risk of eg. vanity press (paid publishing). However, had the same article appeared on the New York Times, the company would be famous and notable without a question. Wikibon is a wiki.
[24]: A brief reiteration of a company press release in an industry publication. Seems to lack any significant editorial input. Press releases are self-published sources.
[25]: Comes closest to being an indepent secondary source with editorial input. However, Infostor is not a general publication, but another "industry publication".

To sum up, none of these references (any of them alone, nor all of them combined) constiture significant coverage in third party sources, thus failing the very first sentence of WP:CORP. --hydrox (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per ThisPolicy, Additional 3rd party sources: eWeek & Analysts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary:

The latter is a blog hosted at eWeek. It is mostly an opinion writing (eg. last sentence: "Both of these Minnesota companies, with Soran at Compellent and equally first-class CEO Casey Powell at Xiotech, have excellent leadership, IMO.") Needless to say, no one expects opinion writings to be reliable sources.
The former is a search result of multiple articles, and some of them could constitute significant coverage in the above-mentioned eWeek publication (eg. [26]), but I would need you to write a clean article in Wiki markup to assess whether they support the facts you want to bring forth in the Wikipedia article.

Currently, the article is written in a promotional sense but still lacking reference for the key sentence of the lead-in that would assess its significance "Xiotech Corporation ... is a privately held data storage company, one of the largest in the world" (emphasis added). --hydrox (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, or have misspoken. Comments of opinion are everywhere on Wikipedia. That is one of the things the Blockquote, bquote, cquote etc templates are for. It is preferred that they be opinions from experts in the field. The source from which they are derived is checked for reliability in its documentation. Blogs are counterindicated, but blogs of experts in the field are just fine. Anarchangel (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, but an opinion writing can not be the only source for an article, unless it is a very remarkable opinion writing. Here it also appears as though the opinion writer might have a COI. --hydrox (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per hydrox. WuhWuzDat 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable small firm with no substantive press coverage. (The unsourced "one of the largest" seems to have been removed.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I'm new to editing Wiki articles and pages within the greater Wikipedia encyclopedia I appreciate the thoughts, notes, and advice from the user commpay. The intent is to add (unbiased/ NPOV) significant and knowledgeable Xiotech contributions, such as emerging storage technologies that tie-into data storage subject-matter throughout other articles and sections. Therefore entries specifically in debate in the Xiotech (section) are not intended to be SPA; and as an open-source user community I'm willing to collaborate with you in making the necessary edits to add value to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Daw (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am sure your contributions on this field of technology are welcomed by the Wikipedia community. But this discussion is not about whether the article is written from the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). Espcially after your several reiterations, the article is now written in a way that meets Wikipedia's requirements of encyclopedic and neutral tone, but this is not the central concern raised in the deletion discussion. Apart from the NPOV policy, Wikipedia also has a notbility policy, that mandates which headwords are considered article-worthy. For corporations, this is outlined in the WP:CORP policy. It might seem frustrating, but I still think this article does not provide enough references to unaffiliated 3rd party resources to establish significant coverage. --hydrox (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD is the wrong venue for this discussion. No arguments point toward deletion. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum fluid[edit]

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

Topic is imprecise and quite vague; as the article itself admits, the term "quantum fluid" can refer to a large number of different concepts. I think it'd be better to have this be a disambig or a redirect (although I'm not sure where) than to have a separate article. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afd is not clean up. Plenty of sources are available to sort this out.T R 23:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quantum fluid is a very well established concept in physics. Article needs to be cleaned up though. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment. A little polishing and this can be considered a stub class article. ~~Quantum fluids do differ from Superfluid so I do not recommend merging with that article.~~ Actually, a little more research and it does seem like physicists are calling superfluid and quantum fluids close to the same thing. I do refer to Quantum solvent, though. This link and this link also have quantum fluid and superfluid referenced at the same time. Not sure if a merge or redirect is a good call afterall. I leave that to someone who knows a little bit more about the subject.Inomyabcs (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced and notable; DAB can be done at a later time if necessary. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:05, 14 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 further corroborated after nomination, recent expansion, no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groupoid algebra[edit]

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

Very little content or notability. delete or at best merge to group algebra. UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article was AfD'd 10 minutes after its creation. Give it time to evolve. Has references showing the term being used, seems notable. PamD (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per PamD. --hydrox (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, totally premature proposal. --Lambiam 19:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep − As mentioned above. Give it some time to develop. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the concept is eminently notable (e.g. see) and there is plenty of material for its own article (e.g. see). Paul August ☎ 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The works cited by Paul August establish notability. As for "little content", the solution is to expand the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JRSpriggs (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. The page isn't written well, yes, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. The company shows sufficient notability - they just picked up a deal with Canon. See also other sources below. If somebody could give this a nice re-write, we'd be good to go. m.o.p 22:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webchutney[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Doesn't seem notable to me. UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy, unreferenced, no evidence of notability, WP:MILL. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See
- http://www.televisionpoint.com/news2009/newsfullstory.php?id=1246458281
- http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/08/14/1791967.htm "Cool Companies"

and a few others at this search Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, perhaps speedy delete. Unreferenced spam. Neither of the two links given in the post above goes far towards establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam; either that or a total rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Webchutney is somewhat notable, being the No. 3 digital agency in India according to Economic Times. Added a few refs. utcursch | talk 05:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Advert. Its quite an accomplished page for a bog standard topic. But they are a digital advertising agency...so I feel the bar to notability has to be higher because any of their 50 staff could write that page. Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ingólfur Sigurðsson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ingólfur Sigurðsson

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

Procedural nomination. Football player who has not made a senior appearance for Iceland or a professional club team and therefore does not meet notability guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, he quite clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. I would like to point out though that the PROD contest reasoning was flawed. A BLPPRODed article may still be PRODed regularly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - footballer fails notability at WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played at a fully-professional or international level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 10:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TALK International[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Of the three references, one is a promotional page for the institution, one is no more than an announcement of a course run by TALK International, on the web page of the institution where the course takes place, and the other doesn't even mention TALK International. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of authoritative third party cites regarding notability. Apparent spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endace[edit]

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

Promotional article with no indication of notability. Of the six references, two are to pages not mentioning Endace, including a Wikipedia article, one is to the company's own site, two are to write-ups of minor incidents involving the company, reading like write-ups of press releases, and the other is a report on a test commissioned by Endace, so it cannot conceivably be seen as independent coverage. Tagged as advert for over two years. Written by a single purpose editor apparently with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-references and no authoritative third party cites to bolster notability. Tagged as an advert for over two years and still seems like an advert? Conflict of interest poster child? --Quartermaster (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incredibly spammy tone here, talking about this business's claimed superlative performance at network monitoring. No indication that this back-office business has had any significant impact on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sources showing notability can be found. At the moment this article is 50% spam and 50% more spam. Grutness...wha? 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut back to just what the reliable independent sources support. The article references two such sources already (NSS Labs and the NZ Herald), and I've found another.[27] The company satisfies WP:COMPANY through the two newspaper articles, though only just. --Avenue (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad. Insignificantly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some real references Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International player, London-based stock, half of market is in US, New Zealand hometown favorite, went to net worth of NZ$170 million in 7 years. I added three references. Unscintillating (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep based on Stuartyeates and Unscintillating added references. Good job kiwis (or kiwi lovers). A little more TLC wouldn't hurt, but I now have no real problem with this article existing. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep. Much improved, notability shown. Certainly a much better article than it was. Grutness...wha? 22:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. PhilKnight (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected jihadists from the Maldives[edit]

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

WP:BLP violations in an article based on two sources, only one of which actualy names any of these individuals. One source which gives these persons one line of attention or less each is insufficient for such serious allegations about living people. Note that the bottom 6 names, despite being sourced to an article in The Hindu, are actually not named in that source, making these clear BLP violations. Fram (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - worrying BLP problems. The reliance on a single source is a problem, but so too is the idea of a "list of suspected ..." people in the first place, especially when they don't have articles. I've removed the names that were not listed in the source. - Bilby (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Bilby. IQinn (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BLP delete While the sources appear credible, the people mentioned in this list are only mentioned in passing. Should be deleted on sight per the Badlydrawnjeff Arbcom decision. Blueboy 96 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, BLP violation. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete right away The word "suspected" is enough for me. (Although I did check out the article.) An encyclopedia needs to be for solid information, not for what is suspected. I hope the authorities catch the terrorists and prevent more crimes, but that is not what WP is for. Borock (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And I'm blanking the page as insufficiently sourced libelous material. EEng (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this was reported to the oversight team for suppression as being potentially libelous. As an oversighter, I reviewed the matter and have speedy-deleted as a clear mass BLP violation, as well as being borderline libelous. It's clearly also going the way of a WP:SNOW delete here. But primarily, it's potentially libelous - Alison ^❤ 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sargasso Records[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. All of the references contain only very brief mention of Sargasso Records, mostly in the form of credit for production of recordings. (PROD was removed by IP editor without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A record label with such a long history and a track record of releases by notable artists should have an article in this encyclopedia. Verifiability isn't a problem here despite an apparent lack of in-depth coverage of the label itself, and deleting articles like this one will not benefit the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough notability of the artists that are released on the label. I believe keeping the article will only strengthen the encylopedia Solubleduck (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The number of notable artists on the record label should be able to link to this article. Therefore, the article should stay. I would recommend though linking to the article where necessary. Malcolm.che (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Michig.Hillcountries (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The work of this label in recording and promoting the music of Jonathan Harvey certainly makes it notable, though this is not evident from the current state of the article. Adding some references to third-party reviews would help. --Deskford (talk) 03:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Only other deletion argument was unsubstantial, and party has enough coverage to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fís Nua[edit]

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

Non-notable political party. Article was created only 3 days after the party registered itself (see [28]). The party has, as yet, only announced plans to run candidates; it has not actually achieved any results. No prejudice against recreating in the future if the party achieves any notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if expanded and referenced properly. The organisation have actually been around since last year. I think they have a couple of (ex-Green?) councillors. Nominations for the GE close tomorrow, so we shall see if the six candidates are indeed standing.Lozleader (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral, leaning~~ Keep It does look like the six candidates are indeed running, but is there any way to find out if they're actually registered? If there is and it can be confirmed that they are running, I'll change to a full keep. Blueboy 96 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to full keep, as it is confirmed those candidates are indeed running. Blueboy 96 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They have registered officially as a political party (See this recent Iris Oifigiúil publication) and are running six candidates in the Irish general election, 2011, see Irish Times 7/2/11. Definitely a minor party but notable all the same. Snappy (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minor, but notable party. —Nightstallion 09:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Snappy and Nightstallion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Irish general election is only a few weeks away: this article should at least be kept until we see how they perform. —Munkitty Tunkitty —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanlee Kelly[edit]

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

Replaced a speedy as a hoax. Unreferenced article on a minor historical pirate. Article creator is their namesake. This might well be a pure hoax, but we should allow sufficient time for those with the refs to check through them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A obvious hoax. No mention in any reference to hand, nothing in google books [29], nada in google searches but wikipedia and a mirror [30]. And the name of the editor is an obvious give away User:Stank58, Stanlee Kelly get it shortened to Stank? Something smells and this was an obvious speedy candidate. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you, although I would note two things. Firstly gHits just aren't reliable, especially not for proving non-existence on older topics. Secondly this isn't an obvious hoax, as that relies on proving a negative. If there's a standard encyclopedia of piracy (Jane's? Wisden? Bradshaw's) and they're not listed there, then that would be a strong indication. Is there such a recognised authority? Has anyone checked it? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From google books No results found for "Stanlee Kelly". Google hits are damn reliable when its an obvious hoax, google books invariably turns up fairly obscure and arcane information. I won't post the normal google search as it turns up the guy's facebook page and its a minor. You made a bad call removing the CSD notice. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might have been a bad call. It was a deliberate choice to risk annoying an established editor (who would hopefully understand some of the issues involved), just to avoid WP:BITEing yet another newbie. Either way, someone's nose is going to be out of joint.

Apart from relying on Google, are you able to check any other piratical references? It's not my field, but are there any well-established refs on the subject where we'd expect all notable pirates to appear? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't rely solely on google, I checked the book on Morgan I had to hand (hint - look at my comments that I highlighted in bold and my edit summary). See [31] where you can get your own copy and check for yourself. This is well known as a primary source. Tell me, what stopped you asking on my talk page first? I don't use speedy lightly where there is any appreciable leeway or doubt. I'm not annoyed, just irritated that we're wasting time on discussing what is obviously a hoax. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Piracy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we were to accept that this is not a hoax, then this article still fails verifiability in spectacular fashion having absolutely no sources that can be found at all. Not even unreliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore[edit]

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

~~Article has no text content, only an infobox. Has been prodded, original editor de-prodded. Unref, orphan, not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw nomination (perhaps move per Cunard below?) - article is now no longer the content-free zone which it was when I nominated (and I don't know enough about US law to generate text content from the infobox, so WP:SOFIXIT didn't apply here!). Glad to see it become something worth keeping in the encyclopedia. PamD (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are already 4 incoming redlinks to the short title Premo v. Moore. PamD (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -- article is a major United States Supreme Court case, there is plenty of text content already included in the infobox that I just transfered over in about 2 seconds, and personally, I think the nominator's insistence on deleting an obviously important article at all costs without even an attempt at the slightest bit of improvement is borderline tendentious editing. Try expanding the article instead -- this deletion is just pure laziness. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article a bit further. None of the original nom reasons apply. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Euclid Faktur. Needs significant expansion and cleanup, but as a Supreme Court case it does pass notability requirements. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All SCOTUS cases are notable because of the coverage they have received in reliable publications. In this court case, see the sources here. This article from the Associated Press, this article from KUOW, and this article from ABA Journal confirm that the court case is notable.
Most of the sources refer to this case as Premo v. Moore. Perhaps this article should be moved there? Cunard (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Became? I don't think you get what the comments here were saying. It was always worth keeping in the encyclopedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or not, an article needs to have some text content even if only a lead sentence. By the time other people were commenting, it did have, so there were no comments on its textlessness. PamD (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have a naming convention for the Law/SCOTUS wikiprojects on article titles vs. captions? It's probably better to move it to the short form, but lets wait till the AFD completes so nothing breaks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too or I'd have WP:BOLDly moved it after finding the incoming redlinks. PamD (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 21:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort (definition)[edit]

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

Also nominating Comfort definition

Is this in wikipedia's scope? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic, also WP:DICDEF. I've A10'd the other article mentioned as a duplicate. Note the creator of the article appears to be the author of two books which the creator is trying to use as references, have advised him of COI and SPAM. Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Redirect to comfort, which currently is a disambiguation page that also points to wikt:comfort. This article appears to want to be about the ergonomics of chairs, an entirely worthy subject for which we already have articles. If the author has written a book about the subject, he should be welcomed and directed towards improving then. Would be open to an eventual article on the ergonomics of chairs, but this title would not work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and I don't see how this is a useful redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:DICDEF. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convision[edit]

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

Non-notable song contest that appears to have taken place on an online social network this year. Nomination also includes:

Convision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Convision Song Contest 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- role^player 09:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, non-notable contest. Part of a WP:Walled garden with Anton Rothenberg and Larin Alexsandr, the latter of whom appears to the creator of the articles.((Infobox Eurovision)) from various Eurovision Song Contest articles have been copied in asserting television broadcasts, but I can find no evidence online in English that the contest even exists. I'll add deletion sorting for Russia: maybe online sources exist in Russian. Borkificator (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all nominated articles, and, perhaps, impose a temporary ban on the creator ? He's been spawning similar articles like crazy.

No sources seem to exist in Russian media as well, search engines fail to find even a single mention. Please note that convision.ru has nothing to do with this, it's a movie, music and literature review site. --Ezhuks (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Island Air Service[edit]

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

A small local carrier with no claim of notability. The sources used are both primary, being the subject's own website. Nothing any better found in a search. The source used to establish what planes they actually have appears to consist solely of photographs with no text other than "Island Air Service owns four planesto meet all your Kodiak travel needs." Given that there are literally hundreds of small airlines in Alaska there seems little reason to have an article for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted by the nom, the only difference between this and the other Alaskan bush-lines is the type of aircraft used, and that's not enough to make them worthy of an article (now, if they had a Trislander, I might cut them a bit more slack. ;) ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability as explained by Bushranger and nom. Maybe they should start flying Trislanders.... I was trying to find another article to merge into but we seem to be missing any Regional airlines of the United States-sort of articles, other than the sad list of regional airlines mess, that is. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing every airline of this size in Alaska would be pretty ridiculous anyway. As so much of Alaska is off the road system there are literally hundreds of local carriers with between two and five small planes like these. Larger carriers are already listed at List of airlines in Alaska, you can see from the talk archives there the various struggles to define what constitutes an airline -vs- an air taxi or flightseeing outfit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The airline is sufficiently notable to sustain an article because it operates scheduled services (i.e not ad hoc charter and sightseeing only). It also operates aircraft outside the General Aviation category, such as the BN Islander. Agree that secondary sources should be sought if possible. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a consensus that providing scheduled service magically grants notability, as you know because you participated in several of the discussions that led to Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability. I've never understood the contention that anything that runs on a schedule is more notable than a similar organization that does not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting into a long drawn-out argument, but if an airline is operating regular scheduled services using an airliner, it should generally be notable enough to sustain an article. An ad-hoc charter operator operating non-scheduled and sightseeing services using a bizjet or bizprop or GA aircraft only is unlikely to be notable enough to sustain an article (IMHO, of course). Mjroots (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see, making up a criterion like that is exactly why we already had several prolonged community discussions. And the conclusion reached at all of them was that scheduling does not confer notability and airlines are subject to WP:N and WP:CORP and do not have any special exemptions or specific thresholds, including scheduling. You have repeated this theory about scheduling conferring notability but have never explained why that is. It just doesn't make any sense to say that an organization with a schedule is automatically notable when an identical organization without a schedule would not be. We haven't even met WP:V here, let alone the GNG or CORP. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that there are thousands of one and two-plane operators in Alaska, let alone the rest of the world. Undoubtedly these perform a useful function, but they are almost all non-notable. Some sort of threshold is needed. Operating scheduled services generally requires licences, government approval, oversight by national (and international) regulatory bodies etc etc. The operation of scheduled services should at least add weight to the argument for notability. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeated this argument in every discussion on the subject over the last several years and it has failed to gain consensus support every time. We tried, you, me, and a stack of other users, to come up with the type of standard you speak of. In the end it was decided that CORP was sufficient. We cannot ignore the fact that there are no sources out there. As a matter of fact, it is not even verified by a reliable independent source that they operate on a schedule. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an independant source which states that the company operates scheduled services. Alaska Travel Service. Mjroots (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent? possibly although they could be being paid for the listing. Reliable? obviously not, as it is a website for a travel agency. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public private trust[edit]

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

Delete - This article asserts the existence and notability of this type of body. However, none of the three sources cited even mentions the term. It appears to be largely unsupported original research. RolandR (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails general notability guidelines. Three references given do not mention this concept by name. There is only one contributor of significant content, and no reliable sources have been provided to establish the existence of this concept. Tried to nominate for WP:PROD and found this WP:AFD active. Why no tag on the article or notification to contributor GeMiJa (talk · contribs)? Elizium23 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought using the template on the AfD page automatically tagged and notified. I will double-check in future. RolandR (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A reference to the public private trust is contained in the follow up comment, in addendum to the blog at Debate Politics, "Empowering Americans" located here http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/monk-eye/178-empowering-americans.html#comments. I will enter it in place of the former quotation.
A reference to the public private trust is also contained deeper in the article for "A Legitimate Stimulus Plan", although AWE does require an account to view content, as of late. I am performing a more comprehensive search of AWE in order to determine where the term was first used, the particular threads referenced were entered as summaries from previous reasoning. The search engine is slow and has been cumbersome, it seems that in order to keep the site up, the owner may have downgraded the hosting services. GeMiJa (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why were references to original posts removed by Elizium23 GeMiJa (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither nationalisation, nor privatization, nor state socialism, nor state capitalism, nor common ownership, nor collective ownership nor corporatizaton, nor socialist market economy, nor communism, nor state socialism, nor mutualism addresses the inclusion of a public private trust in an economic system. Wherever the concept of a public private trust is to be included, it has been stated with a clear distinction from well known economic theories, so as to be obvious and without necessity for notoriety. The economic theory of a public private trust should be available as a unique reference and, this afternoon, I shall go about soliciting inputs from curators of the various economic theories listed. GeMiJa (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read No original research, Verifiability, and Reliable sources. This should answer your questions. --Lambiam 14:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motives One inference may be that a peer review is recommended to determine originality for whom the concept should be attributed. Wikipedia documentation directs such vetting, intuitively, as a precaution to relieve itself of any burden which could arise from copyright violation, if such a thing were to be challenged. Another inference may be that the assertions within the concept are not neutral, although documenting such assertions does not fail a requirement of article neutrality, and framing the content in neutral perspectives can be accommodated. Perhaps a third person reference to oneself could be arranged. Aside from attributing authorship, to me, the article seems little more than documentation. Feel free to point out anything else if it should be obvious. If wikipedia does not accept my contribution, it is okay, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvoEY6C5VNA.

GeMiJa (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate the above comment into English. RolandR (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Blogs and Youtube would not count as reliable sources even if they mentioned the subject. Edward321 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation Versus Ad Hominem[edit]

The following excerpts are proposed to support opposition to deletion of the Public private trust article.

Introduction To Requirements

"Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three."

Claim #1: Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article is compliant with the Wikipedia:No_original_research criteria as a previous publication exists, unless the source of publication cannot be verified, which this proponent asserts as groundless.

-What counts as a reliable source

"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

-Reliable sources and original research

"The No original research policy (NOR) has three requirements relevant to the Verifiability policy:

All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Wikipedia must never be a first publisher."

Claim #2: Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article is compliant with restrictions for What Wikipedia is NOT and with restrictions for No original research, as the article documents a proposal for an economic policy and does not make conjectures based upon research.

-Primary (original) research

Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia can report about your work once it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.

Claim #3: -Based upon the following Wikipedia excerpts, the article may be made compliant with the criteria for Wikipedia verifiability, if it is presented as a self-published source.

"In general, the most reliable sources are: ..., but see self-published sources for exceptions."

-Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Please feel free to constructively reply to the validity of the included claims; and please provide citations from the respective documentation to support alternative claims or concerns.

GeMiJa 16:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from self-published sources:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Somehow I have the feeling that this exception does not apply to you.

Above you quote from self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves; however, unless you, GeMiJa, are the concept of Public private trust, this article is not about you.

Then, even if we were inclined to accept these sources as reliable for the purpose of verifiability, there would still be the issue of notability. Hopefully the following quote from our general notability guideline is enlightening:

"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

What we have here are only primary sources that are most definitely not independent of the subject (as required for notability purposes): they are by the inventor of this neologism. --Lambiam 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North Fremantle Footbag Club[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [32]. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage. (on a side not congratulations for winning the 2011 Classic on or before Jan 2 2010, ~12 months before 2011). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't have the coverage to establish notability. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogniwo Polish Museum Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews, 1 hit in gscholar and the 4 hits in gbooks look like mere directory listings. [33]. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. I can find them listed in directory entries, but that only confirms existence. According to their website, they only open for 2 hours on Tuesday and 4 hours on Thursday, and is completely volunteer run. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:ORG. PK T(alk) 17:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Lore[edit]

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

This is a list of unconnected comments about tea, based on original research. It's unclear what purpose this article serves. Perhaps any sourced material could be incorporated into Chinese tea culture. There's no need to have such a proliferation of weak articles. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, effectively no content. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tea is and has been part of lore or folklore. It is not always easy to define tea in terms of tea ceremony or tea culture.

icetea8 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Roscelese. The article is contains a whole bunc of words that say absolutely nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the blanking was a mistake, i blanked the tea lore discussion page "i think before" the delete discusion was started, i have restored it icetea8 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of tea on Chinese culture[edit]

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

This article does not actually say anything about the influence of tea on Chinese culture. It's just a few assorted unreferenced comments about tea and China. This article could easily be merged with Chinese tea culture. No need for a proliferation of weak articles. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, totally redundant and there doesn't appear to be anything worth merging. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the topic as named isn't redundant, but the actual content here appears to be a vague handwave towards Chinese tea culture, not the influence of tea on broader culture outside tea. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tea has been a strong influence on Chinese culture. icetea8 (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think we need an article which covers that. However this isn't that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article content is rendundant with Chinese tea culture. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Lalkovič[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not competed in a professional league match. Being a trainee at Chelsea is not sufficient Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage, or fully pro appearances, he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. AfD isn't the proper venue for this discussion. None of the arguments point toward deletion. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Furnace, New Jersey[edit]

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

More detailed coverage is in the Oxford Furnace article. No sense in having two articles on one topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like nothing more than an accidental duplication, which is solved by merging and redirecting. It shouldn't have been listed here. postdlf (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Oxford Furnace which is the more comprehensive article. I'm not sure why the two articles existed in parallel, but a merge / redirect would address any relevant issues here. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxford Furnace. Dough 48 72 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am unsure about this one as there appear to be three different topics that could be under these two titles. There is the furnace itself, a physical structure that was the third iron smelting furnace built in NJ; the Historic District, which encompasses an area surrounding the Furnace; and the Village of Oxford Furnace, NJ, a postal village that existed within Oxford Township. I haven't yet found the history of the village in terms of dissolution/merger into the larger town, but there are sources([34] and [35]) treating the village as a separate entity. There are a great many of these small villages in NJ that had their own governments/mayors/etc. and were later absorbed into larger municipalities. Not knowing whether the Historic District and the defunct municipality overlap has me leaning toward one article about the furnace/Historic District at Oxford Furnace, and another about the former town. If there is a merger, there should be an allowance for a proper article about the Village of Oxford Furnace to be created at the Oxford Furnace, New Jersey title. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest this AFD be withdrawn or closed early, the articles tagged for possible merger, and then the article creators/editors can take their time figuring that out. There's simply nothing for AFD to decide here. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murray (politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He was never notable; he should never have had an article; he lost his election; this article should finally be removed, as it should have been back when he was a candidate trying to publicize himself. Orange Mike | Talk 05:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010, any relevant content can be merged there afterwards, if it is found to be necessary. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 06:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep The sources provide sufficient information to write a reasonable biography, and we follow the sources. If there was this much coverage about a milkman delivering milk, he would be notable based upon sourcing alone. The bias against losing politicians is turning WP into an incumbent's paradise. Per WP:GNG, if we have the sources, we should have the article. Anything else is an attempt to insert a value judgment into the inclusion criteria which is outside of policy and principle, or an attempt to bury significant coverage of an individual as "routine" because we have regularly scheduled elections in a democracy. Are we to have another AfD every 90 days until those who seek deletion get the result they want? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Jim, you've made it clear in the past that you feel WP:POLITICIAN should be changed, to make all major-party candidates in the United States (Center of the Universe™) inherently notable; but that isn't the case right now. The coverage provided has not been about Patrick Murray in his own right, it has been about the candidate in that election, regardless of whether he would otherwise be notable. He's just another non-notable former military officer and failed candidate; had he not run for office, nobody would ever have heard of him. As the Penguin says, anything useful could go in the election article. As a failed major-party candidate against an incumbent, and one who got some amusing coverage when he ran, I can see the loser's point of view; but right now, our rules are clear. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to make anyone inherently notable. The decision should always be based one the same question - Do we have sufficient reliable sources to write a reasonably complete article? I only seek to maintain that subject specific guidelines cannot be more strict than the GNG, and that the definition of notable that we use is consistently applied across all subjects. I think that there are SNGs that are much too loose in defining people who can be assumed to have adequate coverage, and I think POLITICIAN is often used to exclude people for whom we have more than enough coverage to write a reasonably complete biography. I don't care if they are the most insignificant person on the planet, or the most important. How important a person is perceived to be should not be a factor in determining whether the article exists. It should strictly be based on the availablility of sources, and whether the sources have determined the individual to be "worthy of notice." Why they received that coverage should never be part of the decision. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - response - On the contrary, that's at the very core of the issue, per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. If the coverage is really about the event, not the person, then they are not thereby made notable in and of themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge/Redirect to the Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010 article. The only source that talks about the subject outside of the election that I can find is the candidate's own website, which is not useable for establishing notability. Therefore, as a consequence of WP:BLP1E, the biographical article should be merged with the singular event to which it is connected. Sailsbystars 13:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's another source from a non-local newspaper talking about him running in 2012. But thinking about running for something obviously isn't a point for notability. Actually running twice and getting coverage would make BLP1E not apply.-LtNOWIS (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

query - how so? The coverage would be about the 2010 race and the 2012 race, respectively, still not about Murray in his own right. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, two notable elections would be two notable events, not one event. The merge/redirect option doesn't work if the guy's involved in two equally notable elections. He wouldn't necessarily be notable, but he would necessarily be more notable. But, this is pretty speculative and not really relevant right now. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point, and is how we get articles on a perennial candidate. BLP1e is only applicable to the extent that so far the candidate has only been involved in a single election. So while it is applicable now, it may not remain so if he runs again, even if he loses again. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virginia's 8th congressional district election, 2010. The sources don't meet the GNG in my view. It's limited campaign coverage. Typical of campaign coverage, the indepedent sources tell us a lot about what he says but little about who he is. Clearly fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN and the WP:BLP1E argument is well made. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this place probably doesn't exist. However, it may be an informal name for a neighborhood that simply hasn't been written about. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean's Mist, New Jersey[edit]

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

I give up. I spent a while trying to locate this place to add geo coordinates ((Coord)) to the article , but could not find any information on this topic. Topic doesn't meet wp:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - US census shows no such community. Also shows no results without the apostrophe. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not even sound like its a real community. Dough 48 72 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a probable hoax. First clue, there are no unincorporated areas in New Jersey. Every square inch of land is located within the legal boundaries of one of the 566 municipalities in the state. I can find no source for this name other than a few businesses in Voorhees and a condo development in Wildwood Crest. There seem to be no supporting sources to prove the existence of any such town or community. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No listing in the GNIS, and absolutely no sources to be found. Probably a hoax. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPAMfighter[edit]

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

Unsourced advert for a seemingly non-notable software maker. Orange Mike | Talk 05:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - as an advertisement masquerading as an article. Should have been speedied. ukexpat (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete, spam, article contains little more than a product list. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acidburp[edit]

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

Non-notable musician Orange Mike | Talk 05:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takatak[edit]

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

claims of notability for a months'-old band not backed by sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One single so far, listed at some sites, but no sign of meeting WP:BAND yet.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only possible claim to notability is the assertion that the single which is their only release so far "topped all local charts in the first week of release", but this is not confirmed by the sources cited. We would need to see evidence that this was true and that the local charts were significant enough to meet WP:BAND, which requires "any country's national music chart". JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A decision on moving the article to a new title is a decision to be taken elsewhere but there is consensus here that this is a valid article. Davewild (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in Vermont[edit]

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

Not notable as it is merely a menu of links which would be better as a template. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 02:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Might be better as a navbox, but I think this might have potential as a list. If this is kept it should be moved to List of military engagements in Vermont. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their Green Mountain Boys seemed to have accomplished a lot. Searching for the state's name and that of various wars, will probably find ample results. Might be a government website out there, listing the states history. Dream Focus 05:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There really are far few battles that fit here to defend the existence of this page. It's essentially nothing but a shorter summary of a few battles. If there was any particular info here on why being in Vermont had a major effect on the battles it would be a different case, but this is not so.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article puts unrelated things together merely because they happened in Vermont. BTW the St. Albans Raid was not really a battle but an attack on civilians by a military force, the other side did not fight back. How about a template for "History of Vermont" with a section for "Military"? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there isn't really enough military history here to justify an article at all. Anything worthy of keeping can be merged to history of Vermont. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few people have said stuff along the lines of "work in progress" and cited eventualist views. I happen to be an eventualist myself, but this is a historical article. The record of battles seems to indicate that the list is about as complete as it's going to get (unless some new battles occur within the state, which jest ain't plenty likely). There just isn't any room for improvement, and that argument doesn't at all address the notability concerns of a somewhat trivial list like this. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three sources added to the talk page for improvements, including a book on Western Abenakis history, including possibly battles with Native Americans. Patience may provide a much better article with more inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard article with excellent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^express 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see the problem with the article. There were notable battles in Vermont, so why shouldn't their be a list article to assist with navigating them? However, it may be appropriate to move the article to List of battles in Vermont. I think it would be great to have an article like this for all US states that have had notable battles. SnottyWong ^express 20:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there only seem to have been four, and the list would better be served as a section of History of Vermont. Also, I think it's somewhat relevant to this discussion to note the existence of the page Vermont in the American Civil War.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and is not simply a menu of links. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE calls will be ignored. Tarc 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That cuts both ways. In my case, I added a source to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 4 is enough for a summary article or list. I have noticed that those deleting list articles normally object on the basis of size— they are either too large or two small. This is not a criterion for deletion., assuming its more than one. ( There is no upper limit, because we can divide alphabetically. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly a viable topic but With only three instances (And one of those is likely hypothetical) of Action occuring in Vermont it seems hard to justify a whole article on the topic. If more battles can be added with WP:RS I will revise to keep The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been expanded substantially to the point where such an Article is viable. Need more work but AFD is not clean up The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the must fully fledged section of the article is on the Battle of Bennington which took place outside the border of Vermont (in New York) and it could be argued it shouldn't therefore be in the article at all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about a keep or delete myself yet, but on this point...the area in question was disputed at the time between New Hampshire and New York (there was no Vermont-as-state until 1791). It should be phrased as "...in what is now New York" in the article. Tarc 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of Vermont. As at least one of the battles occured in new york state. Maybe it should be just a list.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep St. Albans Raid is notable, so is Hubbardton, as is Bennington - and all were, indeed, in Vermont. Territorial claims of New York and Massachusetts were not settled at the time. Vermont's first name was "New Connecticut". WP current usage is to identify sites as being in current map boundary definitions. Collect (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Benngington was BOUT 10 miles from Bennington, Vermont. The battle was faught at Walloomsac, New York. So it did in fact occour in modern new york state. Indeed the presence of Bennington (plus the fact its the only battle that has significant text and does not link to the parent article Battle of Bennington indicates that this may be a fork.artcielSlatersteven (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[36] Burgoyne then made the fateful decision to send an expeditionary force to the small town of Bennington, Vermont to capture these much needed supplies. [37] shows the British map of the battle site. The US forces were headed to Bennington which was, and is, in Vermont. Stark's brigade was encamped, in fact, at Bennington. [38] makes it clear why the battle is called "Battle of Bennington." The huge distance involved was less than the length of Manhattan Island. And the fact remains that the US encampment was actually in Vermont. Collect (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact remains that the battle itself was not in the state. The article's criteria are pretty clear from the title; battles in Vermont, not battles associated with, very close to, or with an encampment in Vermont.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly its Batles in Vermont this reenforces for me the idea that this is a content fork to show that Bennington was a battle in vermont.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven - This is not a content fork. As the article was at the start of its history, it was just five links to each of the battles and the monuments for the first two. I started expanding it by using content from the individual battles' articles, I just hadn't gotten beyond Bennington yet, that's all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The British goal was Bennington. The supplies which were protected were in Bennington. The American encampment was in Bennington. Stark marched from Bennington. Would anyone argue that the siege of Vicksburg, since it was outside the city was therefore not at Vicksburg? I trust not. The other argument was that New York "claimed" Bennington - which would surely not have set well with the citizens of Bennington. [39] limns the story of the New York attempted seizure of land west of the Connecticut River, and the formation of "New Connecticut" and the rise of Ethan Allan. In some respects, Ticonderoga should be included as a part of the Vermont part of the American Revolution - but I am willing to keep it under New York :). AfD is not, however, supposed to be about what is shown here to be a "content dispute" at best. Collect (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to History of Vermont. There appear to be too few articles to require a standalone list: only one substantive battle (Battle of Hubbardton), and one skirmish in the course of an armed robbery (St. Albans Raid)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was initially unsure, I feel it would be wrong to not at least make mention at this discussion of an ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_Canvassing_for_an_AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dummer's War partly occurred in Vermont, and Fort Dummer is in Vermont. Collect (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to point this out, but I cannot see any evidence of specific battles in this war that occurred in Vermont. Also, Fort Drummer, while certainly notable in Vermont's history, does not seem to have been involved in any actual battles.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dummer's War says "In response, Fort Dummer was built near Brattleboro, Vermont. The fort became a major base of operations for scouting and punitive expeditions into Abenaki country." It contributed to the war. Dream Focus 19:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see your point. It served as a base for expeditions, but this is not an article about "battles where the troops or supplies came from Vermont."--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps then the page shoulod be enamed millitary history of Vermont. Becasue that is what is being addes. Material about campighns and wars and bases. not battles.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Millitary history of Vermont it is. Several have suggested that in this AFD already, and it makes sense. Dream Focus 20:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You can't just make unilateral decisions like that for a page under such high amount of debate. I'm not even sure I necessarily disagree with your move, but without any real discussion you can not just go and do that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - (ec)Stop the "gaming". Dummer's War was, indeed, partly in Vermont. Lots of sources. Stark was indeed in Bennington with his troops. Thompson wrote of "incessant" inter-tribal wars. The Battle at Valcour Island is specifically between the British forces based by that island, and Arnold's forces at Isle La Motte. Vermont. Now can we stop deleting everything from the article, please? Collect (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Collect, read the source you linked about La Motte. It says the Benedict briefly retreated to there but left. I agree though, at least some of the deletions have been a bit too unnecessary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was about battles not wars or campighns (or bases) it has now been moved so most of that material can now be incldued.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be so kind as to undo all the deletions. Collect (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the page has now been moved back again I don't see why material not about battles should be included.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic; although it's a tad short of content right now, I have no doubt it is a good candidate for expansion and improvement over time. This article clearly falls under the eventualism umbrella. (As a side note, this is one of the very rare occasions when I have felt the need to !vote keep in a deletion debate; usually the conclusion of the deletion discussion has been a foregone conclusion long before I've shown up. I'm really surprised this discussion has been so hotly debated.) Risker (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting also that the place for discussing article names is, of all places, on the article talk page. Where a section has been started, hopefully taking the "delete !votes" on the basis of the article title off the table. Collect (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Admittedly, the article needs work. But the sources are there and meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As has been mentioned above, moving a page while it's at AfD is generally considered bad form. "Military history of Vermont" is probably the best location, I'd agree, as it would allow for the best coverage of the subject without word-gaming what is a battle and what is not etc. But it should be moved after the AfD closes, not before. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a work in progress about a notable topic, given the amount of sources about the military history of Vermont. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qrsdogg. I don't know what the final state of this article will be (a list, a Military history of Vermont article), but that's a matter for normal editing to sort out. In any event, the nom's claims are completely incorrect. It is a notable topic; something is not non notable just because it is a "menu of links"; this isn't just a "menu of links"; it would not be better as a template; and even if it would make a better template, that does not mean it makes a bad list. Did I leave anything out? postdlf (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename/expand. I accidentally came to this page, from a user's talk page, so my opinion is not very educated. However if the article is kept, it is better be renamed as suggested, to Military history of Vermont and expanded correspondingly. This will make the page more encyclopedic and systematic. Lolo Sambinho (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes sense, the main problem I see is that St. Albans Raid needs to be merged into this article. I also weak agree with the rename to Military history of Vermont, although this might lead to which units were sent to WWII and Vietnam, and famous military people, when what would be more interesting right now are maps and more details. I propose Military conflict in Vermont. Unscintillating (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's acutally the point, though - to allow for those kind of things to be included. MCinVT would also exclude the Battle of Bennington which is quite relevant to Vermont's military history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article is renamed "Military history of Vermont" then I think it should include information on Vermont people who fought in other wars, up to the present time. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR WITHDRAWN The article is now of a sufficient standard (probably rescued) to become either a list or a full-fleged article. If nobody minds, I will move to Military history of Vermont. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood Tradition Celtic Shamanic Wicca[edit]

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

Deprodded by article creator, my concerns remains that there are no independent reliable sources that I can find to indicate it meets our notability guidelines. In deprodding, the category creator has pointed to a non-WP:RS (in my opinion) link attesting to the fact that Meri Fowler founded it, which is not what's at issue here. I believe the WP:SPA (and possible WP:COI) editor simply doesn't understand our notability requirements. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. --Rob (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 February 2011 Yes Shawn in Montreal is correct. I don't know understand the notability requirements and would appreciate some help from him if he would be interested to work on it with me. Greenwoodmeri (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Articles need to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines generally referred to as notability. This usually involves demonstrating that there is significant coverage about the subject from independent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I could find the reliable sources I would have added them myself, per WP:PRESERVE. I just don't see it, unfortunately. I believe you're based in Montreal, like me. Has the Gazette ever done a story? Or local CBC Radio? Has an independently published book on the history of Wicca -- one not associated with your movement -- written about your group? These are the sort of references we would need. It might just be a case of WP:TOOSOON, meaning it's too soon for a wiki article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Thank you Shawn very much for your valuable input. I appreciate it very much. The Gazette has written about our community center, I have been a guest speaker for Women's Day at Vanier College, and I was interviewed on the Irish radio station one year for Samhain. But maybe it is too soon for a Wiki article. Our Tradition has more covens than any other Tradition in Quebec(most traditions have one or two), we have 11 and a waiting list for people to train with us. It's not just the number of people that makes me think this is noteworthy for the Wiccan community however, but the fact that although Wicca is the fastest growing spiritual movement in the world it is so hidden. Bringing us out of the broom closet, so to speak, creates awareness and tolerance. To the many denominations (Traditions) of Protestants a new Protestant church would be newsworthy, so a new Wiccan Tradition that is as established and growing as Greenwood is news to us and the world Wiccan community. Guess we need some more press! Maybe I should speak out against the Catholic Churches new publication: How to convert Wiccans. Apparently Witch hunts are not a thing of the past! That might get us an independent reference or two.:) Greenwoodmeri (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven (interactive book)[edit]

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

Article added by User:Kenoiyan which seems to be an avid fan of The Raven. However this particular product isn't really notable. Travelbird (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the product may be less notable - since it's a relatively new product - I believe there's enough dependable sources and references to keep the article online as a work-in-progress (stud) article. I would appreciate some help with polishing this article, its information, and its sources. Thank you. ^^ Kenoiyan (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Note that the many references in the article are really uncritical directory listings of apps. -- Whpq (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two reference links to critical reviews added (one academic). Kenoiyan (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I don't see how they meet the criteria for reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 02:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable, third-party coverage. The sources in the article are essentially all first-party. The links that aren't the publisher's site are copies of a press release/blurb from the iOS app store. Two reviews from small blogs, which are not wp:RS. Searches turn up the same first-party stuff. » scoops “5x5„ 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to East Asians in the United Kingdom#Burmese. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese people in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

The article's only source simply gives the number of Burmese-born people living in the UK in 2001, with no indication of whether they think of themselves as a group or whether such a group is notable per WP:NOTABILITY. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^comment 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to East Asians in the United Kingdom#Burmese. The sources are somewhat weak here, and the topic doesn't appear to require its own article at this point. If the Burmese section in the main article gets too long, it can always be split out into its own article when the time is right. SnottyWong ^comment 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MergeAgreed tehre appears to be not enught here for a stand alone artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but I'm afraid the nominator is right about WP:NF. It could be argued that by being screened at a notable festival counts as "it's been taken note of" but the community disagrees. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity (film)[edit]

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

Short film with no evidence of notability; no awards, reviews etc. Tassedethe (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Current article lacks proper sourcing. Film has been included in a "Halloween Shorts Collection", and is itself now screening at festivals. Article will require use of available sources in its expansion. Film Monthly Cinema Crazed Fangoria FearNet Shock Til You Drop LA Short Fest etc. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is incomplete in many aspects but the subject is enough notable, featured in some international film festivals. Bill william compton (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be intransigent. If you feel it can be improved, go for it! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Glad will not be intransigent. Notable, as featured in international film festivals. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Screening at a film festival is not a notability criteria as listed at WP:NF, except for criteria 2c The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. And this film does not match that criteria. Tassedethe (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shooman[edit]

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

Non-notable music journalist. No third party sources to establish notability. No references at all, in fact: totally unverified. The author credits are to minor books and articles in run of the mill periodicals. Writing an article in the Ryanair in-flight magazine does not notability make.GrapedApe (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this article which I don't feel is really independent coverage. And there is this polish language article about one of his books. But aside from that, I cannot find significant coverage about him or his writings in reliable sources with an emphasis on reliable. I can find interviews like this, and reviews like this, but they aren't reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 02:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate. The delete !voters make a stronger argument here but per mansford I'm going to exercise admin's discretion and move this to the incubator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Scottish Uruguayan

Scottish Uruguayan[edit]

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

No evidence of wide use. NO sources. Definition is recursive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No evidence of wide use." - Which other terms would you prefer then? The vaguer "British Uruguayan", or the completely inaccurate "Anglo-Uruguayan"? --MacRusgail (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. There are now "sources", but I am extremely wary of using online ones, since they have a short shelflife, and then someone comes along and removes them and claims the article is "unreferenced". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs)

Keep Uruguayans of Scottish origin are of note (there's even a Catalan article on the same). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - "Scottish Xan/ish" is standard nomenclature e.g. Scottish American, Italian Australian, Slovenian Canadians.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted this has nothing to do with whether the topic itself is notable or not, but ... this naming pattern is not a scholarly standard outside of the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Some cases use the opposite ordering: British Pakistanis (i.e. Pakistanis in the UK, not Britons in Pakistan), Malaysian Chinese, Burmese Indians.
Some cases use terms from foreign languages instead: Koryo-saram, Hindoestanen, Confederados, Dungan people.
And in some cases (like many of the articles in Category:Ethnic groups in Uruguay), there's no specific term at all used in the literature, so the Wikipedia article ends up with one of five or so different kinds of descriptive title: Portuguese people of Cape Verdean descent, Armenians in Syria, Japanese settlement in the Philippines, Vietnamese community in Senegal, British migration to Spain.

As Cordless Larry notes, the term "Scottish Uruguayans" does not appear to be used outside of Wikipedia; specifically, none of the sources you cited seem to use it, and I highly doubt any Spanish sources use analogous terms either. cab (call) 13:44, 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, Dusti^*poke* 02:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the two sources in the article do not constitute significant coverage and may be unreliable (they look self-published to me). A search suggests that the term "Scottish Uruguayans" is not used outside of Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most available material on this subject matter will be in the Spanish language, not English. If people do not like the term "Scottish Uruguayans", they should come up with a viable alternative.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do such Spanish-language sources exist, though? Perhaps if some were found then the significant coverage criteria would be met. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources covering this as an individual topic. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I hate to see this one get deleted, in that I believe that the article creator would be able to make more out of it. In addition, I think that the topic of immigration into Central and South America from the British Isles is under-represented. On the other hand, there's not much information (such as the number of persons who are of Scots descent, or the Scots-Irish, Scots who migrated first to Ulster and then onward-- in the U.S., it's been a large population). Sources may be available in Spanish, and Google translate does very well with Spanish, which might make it easier for MacRusgail to locate and read them. On the other hand, he or she, like the rest of us, does this during spare time and it's hard to perfect an article in a short time. Mandsford 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both sources given are dubious. It is stretching importance too far. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Marks[edit]

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

This was previously salted after having been repeatedly speedy deleted in the past. It was created again this week with different capitalization and I moved it to the current location due to a request at WP:RFPP. The sources used are not reliable. Two are user-generated sites, one is simply an online episode of the reality show he was on, and one is the subject's own website. I searched gnews and nothing useful turned up. Despite being repeatedly deleted in the past there does not appear to have ever actually been a discussion about this article, so I'm bringing it here. As I cannot find proper reliable sources I move this be deleted and the protection be restored and expanded to other capitalizations. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are some references out there, but nothing that really justifies a separate article considering WP:BLP1E. If this article is deleted, I suggest creating a protected redirect from Lee Marks to I_Love_New_York_(season_1)#Contestants. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 02:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SILENCE Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His TV and web-TV career does not add up to much. The article is confusing to read, because somebody deleted the phrase "also known as Mr. Boston" from the lead sentence but did not delete all the references to him as "Boston" in the article. However, he does not appear to have achieved Wikipedia-style notability under either name. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical peer review[edit]

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

In his speedy delete recommendation, Tom Bergen (talk · contribs) wrote, "this article is not evidence-based;the term Medical peer review is ambiguous and is confounded by Clinical peer review for which an article meeting Wikipedia standards now exists". I have removed the speedy deletion tag and initiated an AfD discussion to give the community the opportunity to evaluate this article, which has existed since August 2006. Cunard (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to Clinical peer review, which covers the exact same material, only better. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Medical peer review (Mpr) contains content critical of the process; citations for this can be found on Sham peer review. It contains a link to Specialty medical peer review, deleted without AfD 22:14, 1 September 2008 by User:Maxim. Mpr contains a link to Utilization review, deleted 22:12, 1 September 2008 by Maxim, without AfD or talk page discussion, while a merge tag existed on both Utilization review and Utilization management, another linked article on Mpr. Mpr contains links to Sham peer review and Subpoena duces tecum. Clinical peer review, while it contains additional content on the process, has no mention of peer review difficulties and no internal links at all, and was called Physician peer review until Tom Bergen moved it. The move summary specifically indicates Bergen's plan to delete Mpr by making Physician peer review a similar name, thereby forcing a redundancy. There has been some skirting of the rules here already; I would be very leery of any outcome that did not address the additional content on Mpr. Anarchangel (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gu Changsheng[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP on a Chinese historian. Has lots of claims of notability, however the only thing I seem to be able to find is that he recently wrote a book entitled "Awaken Memoirs of a Chinese Historian ". Amazon has the following author's (self-)description:

"Gu Chang-Sheng is The People Republic of China's pre-eminent historian of Christianity in China, respected both in the East and the West for his objectivity and intellectual rigor. He researched the history of Christianity in China for the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences. During the Cultural Revolution, he spent three years in an isolation camp and seven years as a forced laborer in a factory. From 1976 to 1989, he taught history at Shanghai East China Normal University. Professor Gu was a Visiting Scholar at Yale University's History Department in 1985 and at Yale Divinity School in 1986. In 1989, the U.S. Congress invited him to attend the Presidential Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. Professor Gu remained in the U.S. after the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre so that he could speak out for intellectual freedom and human rights. He has published more than 100 newspaper and magazine articles in the U.S., Canada, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Gu Chang-sheng is the author of nine books in Chinese, including Missionaries and Modern China. His most recent article, On Being a Historian for 50 Years, was published in China in July 2007; it was immediately banned and recalled by the Beijing government in August 2007. "

I find it a bit strange that there seems to be nothing else out there on him despite all these claims of notability and there seem to be no independent third party sources talking about him. Quite likely I'm just not apt enough to find things on Google, so if anyone can source these many claims I'm happy to keep the article. Travelbird (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has a self-published memoir through Authorhouse which is if course completely useless for establishing notability. But it may be an aid to further research in finding reliable sources. This book indicates that Missionaries and Modern China by Gu Changsheng is a "standard Chinese text". This snippet indicates that there was some sort of broadcast review of the book but the snippet view isn't sufficient to identify exactly what the BBC monitoring service was listing. This book lists the the work as a resource. Note that the transliteration of the author's name is Ku Ch'ang-sheng. Clearly more work needs to be done on this article but these sources indicates that Gu is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that if we can get some editors who read Chinese to weigh in here we should be able to establish notability. I just spent a minute or two looking and found a couple of books that have a good number of library holdings listed in Worldcat [40][41][42] and to have plenty of citations listed in Google Scholar [43]. Taking into account that neither Worldcat nor Google Scholar has particicularly good coverage of Chinese works this would seem to indicate notability, but, not being able to read Chinese, I can't be certain. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 5 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't found any one thing which clearly shows notability, but per Whpq and Phil Bridger, looking around there is enough to suggest his importance in his area of research - he is well cited, his books are widely available, and comments such as Uhalley's point to having made an impact in his field. I'd also prefer someone with more expertise in the area to chime in, and hopefully someone will, but at this point I'd go with keep based on citations and how he is generally cited. - Bilby (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mac[edit]

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

Non-notable bio of a radio announcer with no sources even then notability is debatable. Just because they maybe a radio announcer or said to have been on TV doesn't make them automatically notable. Bidgee (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But hosting a prime radio show on a major network in a capital city usually does make you notable. Some of these refs would probably meet the GNG. I cannot ref the article now but will in the next day or so. Note that it had been tagged as a UBLP for only 24 hours before being nominated here. The-Pope (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the sources provided (like the SMH) one are borderline, but probably just punt him over the line. The article in its current state is atrocious though, and needs a thorough rewrite. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:27, 5 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) 00:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Never listened to his program, but he's arguably the most well-known radio presenter on the west coast, so. Rebecca (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UBackup[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. See this search, for instance. (Never mind that the article is written in an unencyclopedic tone, and occasionally reads like a manual.) Drmies (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about (mis)using Usenet as a means of backing up data in any reliable sources. That's not surprising as it is a really dumb idea. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bergmenn Mountain Guides[edit]

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

Non notable company, little third party coverage outside Mountain Guide field. Worm 12:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just can't find enough about the company. They are also online as Arctic Heli Skiing, but it's the same outfit. On the other hand, Jökull Bergmann himself might be notable. Here's a spring 2010 article calling him "one of Iceland's most renowned mountaineers", and he does seem to be extraordinarily well qualified. Might pass under the notability guidelines for heavy local coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hecus[edit]

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

Contested prod, no indication of WP:Notability, unreferenced (WP:RS), posible conflict of interest (WP:COI) and advertising (WP:Advertising). One of the key authors is also persistently spamming external link sections of other articles with the company's url. Polyamorph (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* article was an "orphan" so it was linked to relevant wikipedia articles sites. no advertising intended - information only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrofev (talk • contribs) 07:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what makes this company notable? I can't see how it meets wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Polyamorph (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with no indication of notability. Is also highly promotional. Ravendrop (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Since the editor who removed the PROD now advocates deletion, I'm going to treat this as if the PROD had expired. If anybody wants to make a "keep" argument let me know and I'll restore the article and reopen this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipédia: a enciclopédia livre e gratuita da Internet[edit]

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

Portuguese how-to guidebook for Wikipedia. No indication that the book meets any of our notability standards, see WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I de-prodded this, because I thought a quick deletion may be controversial. However, I would delete it as non-notable. Nothing in the article would lead me to believe this will be a bestseller or seminal text. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been in error that this might create any controversy. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonzero Records[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable record label. Article was created by its "founder". Damiens.rf 17:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 gnews hits says it all. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' whilst article was created by its founder, it has been modified to ensure NPOV and I have commenced providing independent references. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Graham[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER.LedRush (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Krashlandon ^(talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she acted as a major supporting character of a B-movie and a supporting guest star of a failed TV show, per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BARE. The other roles mostly do not even have names, which indicates they might be minor roles. The real question is whether in total those count as "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," etc. I am leaning to answer in the affirmative, but I don't know enough to be sure. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only appears to have had one significant role, and there appears to be little coverage of Graham herself around, so a BLP is not justified here.--Michig (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Lear's Fool 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion. As the article states, this "is a small amusement pier". Although it operates a rare Wonder Wheel I see no indication of notability for either the venue or the company that operates it. De728631 (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IN THE FXXX IS YOUR PROBLEM???? THIS ARTICLE IS NO LESS INSIGNIFICANT THAN MANY OTHERS. In fact piers and parks far smaller than this one and many the same size are articles. Examples - Land Of Make Believe in Warren County NJ, Rye Playland, Luna Park at Coney Island the 2010 incarnation, dozens of small water parks, among other parks and piers in the same league with Deno's Wonderwheel Park are not being pushed for deletion. What annoys me is doesn't someone have better things to do with their time (especially if they live on the east coast being we have shorter days) than look for articles to delete on Wikipedia - So this article should remain - WHAT HARM IS IT DOING??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.44.113 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: - AFD tag was removed from article on Jan 31. I have restored the tag -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The amusement park has been covered as part of the Coney Island complex. This article notes it as a landmark attraction. Some coverage of operations. Coverage in Ny Daily News. Apparently it and other atttractions have been called "squalid". More coverage. There's more news coverage behind pay walls. Coverage also exists in books like this, this -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DOES ANYONE WANT THIS ARTICLE DELETED SO FAST??? What harm is it doing? Someone must have plenty of time on their hands to look for articles they dislike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.44.113 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you want this article to be kept then a better use of your time would be to follow Whpq's example by finding reliable sources, such as books and newspaper articles that have coverage of this amusement park, rather than ranting about other editors. SHOUTING won't help to save this article, but presenting evidence of notability will. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a significant amusement park at a world-famous location for amusement parks.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wonder Wheel. All the relevant coverage seems to be about the Wonder Wheel and not the park itself. I don't believe that notability is inherited for an amusement park if only one of its attractions is notable. Ravendrop (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Park appears notable enough for an article. Dough 48 72 01:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage. most of the coverage confirms it exists rather than indepth [44]. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The address, Deno's Wonder Wheel Amusement Park, 3059 Denos Vourderis Place, New York, NY 11224, speaks all by itself to the park's having been noticed by someone that names streets (or places). The city has designated the place an official "New York City Landmark". I looked at two of the secondary sources provided by Whpq and both were in-depth coverage of the park (Lilliefors p. 41, and Dog day afternoon at Coney Island: Ferris wheel dog goes round and round). Unscintillating (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Notable. The amusement park has been covered as part of the Coney Island complex. - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:17, 14 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. Arguments to keep are mostly self identified as weak. Arguments to delete are detailed and specific. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lackadaisy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sources are primary except for an interview and a trivial mention in Italian. Precedent per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Online (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(web)/Archive_08#Web_Cartoonist.27s_Choice_award is that Web Cartoonist's Choice Award is insufficient for notability. Kept in last AFD almost entirely due to WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments; first !voter argued that the Escapist and Dot Net coverage was sufficient, but both articles are merely interviews with the cartoonist and thus do not meet the criterion for non-trivial independent coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (I apologize in advance for any missteps I might make here; I'm new to this kind of discussion.) Speaking to notability, Lackadaisy has articles on other high-profile wikis, including Russian Wikipedia and WikiFur. With regards to secondary source coverage, Lackadaisy has been reviewed extensively (Archive Crawl, The Webcomic Overlook, Webcomics You Should Be Reading on ComicM!x), including four separate reviews on Comic Fencing, a source considered mainstream enough to be cited extensively on the page for the popular comic Gunnerkrigg Court. Lackadaisy has a sizeable and devoted fan base, with its own budding wiki and an fan audio adaptation by professional voiceover artists. The precedent you cited seems ambiguous and outdated to me; no discussion really took place, and it mentions the deletion of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards page, which has since been reinstated. I personally created this article several years ago, and did not contest its deletion on notability grounds shortly thereafter. Since, though, Lackadaisy has received multiple WCCAs and has received physical publishing, and, between the previous sources, the Comic Fencing coverage, and status on Russian Wikipedia, I don't understand what notability guideline it fails to meet. —Zero (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presence on other wikis, particularly WikiFur, means nothing. The "reviews" you cited are not from reliable reviewers, particularly not Comic Fencins which seems to be user submitted. Having a fan wiki and a vocal adaptation mean nothing toward WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Neither does being published in print. You are clearly ignoring every single criterion of WP:WEB, and your argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITEXISTS. Where are the reliable secondary sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm amazed previous discussion "keep" voters pointed to sources like this Escapist interview[45] that devotes only a single sentence to this topic. Interviews are primary sources, a single sentence is not significant coverage, and we need significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources to write an encyclopedia article per WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or weak Merge and redirect, but delete would lose information that is verifiable for this article. Accordingly I have added ((Merge)) templates to Lackadaisy and 2007 Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. For completeness, here are the third party sources used by the article:
The Escapist (magazine) Keave, Vincent (2008-09-02). "The Perspectives of Tracy J. Butler". The Escapist. Retrieved 2008-09-05.

netmag.co.uk interview "Interview: The brains behind Lackadaisy". No. 186. .Net magazine. March 2, 2009. Retrieved August 21, 2009.

ryanestrada.com WCCA 2007 page "Outstanding Newcomer". Web Cartoonists' Choice Award. 2007. Retrieved 1 February 2011.

ryanestrada.com WCCA 2007 page "Outstanding Artist by Derrick Fish". Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. Retrieved 1 February 2011.

ursamajorawards.org "Ursa Major Awards - 2007 winners". Ursa Major Awards. Retrieved 2008-09-08.

ccawards.com WCCA 2008 page "2008 Winners List". Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. 2008-03-08. Retrieved 2008-03-11.

lackadaisy.foxprints.com Antonini, Maria Chiara (March 2008). "Fumetti". Top Girl (in Italian). p. 62. Retrieved September 19, 2010.

4th Dimension Entertainment "4th Dimension Entertainment". Retrieved September 19, 2010.

Joe England news at keenspot England, Joe (April 8, 2007). "Joe England news". keenspot.com. Retrieved September 19, 2010.

Girl Genius Online comic with "Lackadaisy" in the panel Foglio, Phil (March 21, 2007). "Girl Genius Online Comics". Girl Genius. Retrieved September 19, 2010. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

-84user (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of all these things you've listed do you believe show this topic meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Among the many problems with these sources: The Escapist is a single sentence on this topic so not significant coverage. .Net is an interview, and interviews are primary sources, not secondary. ryanestrada.com pages each spend less than a sentence on this topic which isn't significant coverage. ursamajor is a list which doesn't even write a complete sentence on this topic so that's not significant coverage. ccawards is another list which doesn't even have a single sentence about this topic so that's not significant coverage. "fumetti" is an interview which is not a secondary source. 4th dimension entertainment is two sentences and promotional and not independent of the subject. "Joe England News" is a single sentence which is not significant coverage. Girl Genius Online comic is two words which is not significant coverage. Not a single "source" in this article or pointed to here shows significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject that we would need to begin writing an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. all the sources arent great..but the few that are shows notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of all those not great sources do you believe show this meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any objections to me just merging the article as I suggested? After three deletion nominations, the wikipedia community needs to make a final decision, otherwise a keep will merely result in another nomination. Editors have better things to do than this I think. For what it is worth I only listed all the references to show readers all the references, with no judgement as to their fitness. So, keep, merge, or delete outright? Which do the people want? -84user (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this type of poorly sourced material should be merged into other articles, and I don't think any further information on this topic should be included in the list you have suggested as a merge target, as that would give this topic undue weight. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sneaks above the notability radar, just. I think there will be a fourth nomination though, its marginal. Szzuk (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a requirement for third-party sourcing. Second choice merge/redirect. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, anyone who's said "keep" has not given any sort of proof as to how the sources shown above are reliable, third party coverage. As Starblueheather points out above, almost every source is an interview or tangential mention, which is clearly insufficient — I think the "keep" !voters are ignorign that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't think the salt shaker is needed yet but I'll keep an eye on this. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Halo Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously at AFD and deleted per community consensus it failed notability described at WP:NOTE. Re-created with some questionable sources by a new user. Bringing here to AFD for community assessment of this version and whether or not it fails WP:NOTE. Cheers. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments After this request for feedback, and a furrther request on my talk page, I was asked to check over the references for this. As the AfD is ongoing, I thought it might be useful to add my comments here;

Ref 1 is really a very brief mention of Halo - and it doesn't, of course, even mention "The Halo Group" - just "Halo Advertizing". It might be OK to verify who opened that, in 1994, but it doesn't help show any notability for "The Halo Group".
Ref 2 just shows a person who works there wrote an article. The article itself being totally unrelated to Halo.
Ref 3 verifies the award, but has no details about Halo - ie, just a listing entry.
Ref 4, I am wary of anything relating to PR; was this article ever published, or is it just an online thing? A lot of these PR-type websites will pretty much report anything on their website. It certainly reads in a very promotional way; is it really an independent source - or, did Halo have involvement, in writing it, or paying for its inclusion?
Ref 5 I cannot see all of that, because it requires subscription; but a) it again looks like PR, and b) it seems to be, really, about Liebherr, b) it looks like PR
Ref 6 - is this an independent source? "Dolan Media Newswires"?
Ref 7 for the claim 'featured in adweek' - but, again, this article is not about Halo at all; it just mentions them, at the end.
Ref 8 another very brief mention
Ref 9 an award listing

In conclusion, I cannot see evidence of "Significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject", which is the notability requirement. See also WP:CORP. Chzz ► 07:13, 6 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) 00:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. An advertising page for an ad agency. Simply being "recognized" for having created advertising campaigns does not establish that this business has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture. And this re-creation is entirely a PR puff piece and does not really address the issues that led to this article being deleted before. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Kocovic[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable, may eventually be, but for now is WP:CRYSTAL Ravendrop (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sports notability guideline for tennis players. If he does become notbale in the future the article can easily be recreated, but at the moment he is not notable. Also (while not a criteria for deletion) the article seems to have been written as a bit of a joke. Jenks24 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy (Madball album)[edit]

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

Album with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major studio albums from notable bands generally get articles unless there's some particularly compelling reason why they shouldn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to a discography article. Notable band. Enough coverage for a short article: Deseret News, MTV (verifies producer), plus foreign language sources that may/may not be RS's: [46], [47]. Other albums by the band have similarly short articles with minimal content, so perhaps they could all be combined into a more detailed discography than exists in the Madball article.--Michig (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, it's disapointing that there was no mention of sourcing and nobody addressed the nom's OR argument. If someone wants to renominate this in a month or so I wouldn't object. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rally towel[edit]

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

While a common practice, I can't find anything on Google or elsewhere that supports that this phenomenon is notable. I find no coverage on the topic other than mentions that people waved towels, or that they can be bought, etc. The article is highly WP:OR, and may be WP:FANCRUFT of the Pittsburgh Steelers as there is a huge emphasis on them, and I can no find no reliable references that say that this phenomenon originated with Pittsburgh. Was a contested PROD, with PROD removed by major contributor without comment. Ravendrop (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment Another concern is that the term "rally towel" may in fact be a Neologism, as each team/incident may have its own nickname (Terrible Towel, Towel Power, etc.) and therefore may we Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Ravendrop (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Start with the Terrible Towel article and work backwards. "Terrible Towels" are very clearly notable in Wikipedia terms and encyclopedia-worthy as a topic. That article is terrific. The rally towel is the broader generic term and while this effort needs more work and additional sourcing, it's a fine start. This is not off-the-wall fringe "original research" that we should guard against, this is an earnest effort at creation of a seemingly notable and encyclopedia-worthy generalized topic. It's a good effort that needs more work and additional sourcing, not deletion. Carrite (talk) 06:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Rally cap. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough topic. Good start to an article. Needs more work. Borock (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would definitely like to see a third party source connect some of the dots here, but I think it's a notable topic and worth developing. —Bill Price (nyb) 02:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. T. Canens (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar's Linguistic Concepts and Criteria[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sarkar's Linguistic Concepts and Criteria

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

No evidence of notability, just citations of author's own works Macrakis (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - but even if it were notable, it still smacks of original research. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable and notable to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; delete the rest. —Angr (talk) 22:04, 12 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, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge verifiable elements to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (although the sources given appear to be primary sources) without redirect. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar: that article's not too long to contain this information, which does seem verifiable. Robofish (talk) 02:34, 15 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.