< 14 January 16 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Startup Weekend. The user has failed to produce the said reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Nelsen[edit]

Clint Nelsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no indication of notability. Talk page claims coverage in Forbes and NY Times but the only refs I can find are about Startup Weekend with trivial references to Nelson. noq (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart's law[edit]

Stewart's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced. Nothing on google to back up the claims noq (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Winkler[edit]

Scott Winkler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(The article was previously nominated and discussed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Karpowich) Non-notable college hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. He has not competed in any IIHF competitions, and has not played on a fully professional team or at the highest level, and has not played 100+ minor league games. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Played for Frisk Tigers, which is a member of the Norwegian pro league. Blueboy96 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC) * Change to neutral--a search reveals the Norwegian league is the 13th-ranked league in Europe. Seems to be right on the line between top-level and low-level, and for that reason I'm wary of going full keep here. Blueboy96 01:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

While WP:NHOCKEY states: “Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they 1.) Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league...” the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey [1] appears to support the notion that the Norwegian pro league is not considered to be a "top professional league". Dolovis (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHere's the discussion on this? That league is the top league in Norway--would be interested in how this consensus was reached. Blueboy96 01:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not accurate at all, and no consensus to support Dolovis' statement. The AfD they point to completely contradicts his statement. Grsz 11 01:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't even remotely correct. The first sentence of NHOCKEY is taken to mean the top level league in a country which is why it says top level. ie not a countries minor league. And the afd you point to completely contradicts your statement. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it names the fully professional minor leagues that the project thinks are significant enough to justify a "100 games" inclusion, rather than saying that 100 games in any minor league will count. The leagues named are all one level below the North American, Swedish, and Finnish majors, and send players there. And the phrase "highest level of competition" that you quote has to be read in its context "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant, such as the 19th century Amateur Hockey Association or the Soviet League;" (what this refers to is that in the Communist era, the players from the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia were, officially, amateurs). Hence, I don't think that either section 2 or 3 could be interpreted that way. Nothing against Mr. Winkler-- not yet 21, he might make the big leagues after college-- but for now, he's not even a big fish in a little pond, and the Norway hockey league is a little pond. Mandsford 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it says such as. The list when creating NHOCKEY was just intended to be examples. In reality the change that happened when nhockey was created was that the requirements changed from 1 game in any pro league to 100 games in any pro league or 1 game in a top pro league. -DJSasso (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you pointed out that there was a prior discussion, which I've located and linked up at the top. It was kept at that time (2008), although that was before sport-specific interpretations of WP:ATHLETE were made by the fans of those individual sports. I think that the examples given in WP:NHOCKEY (for that matter, the very naming of examples at all) would say more about the intent than anything else could, in that the named leagues would be the best of the minors and the best of the so-called amateurs. Mandsford 03:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably the best point that's been made yet. Colorado College doesn't have a football team, and its at D-3 in basketball, but its ice hockey team is NCAA Division I and a student athlete has to be certified as an amateur. Besides assuming that NHOCKEY has a bye for any athletes from a fully professional league, or those on the best league in any nation, I think that there's been an assumption that the Norway league is fully professional-- and if some of its former players can be counted by the NCAA as amateurs, then it isn't fully pro. Mandsford 23:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize no one is arguing keep at this point right? LoL you don't have to try and convince anyone. :) Besides which I won't get into the conversation about what the NCAA considers amateur or not. Its definition of the word amateur jives with almost every other organizations so we rarely accept what the NCAA has to say on the topic of amateur or not. -DJSasso (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably the best point that's been made yet. I'll stop now. Mandsford 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: How much coverage is needed to pass WP:GNG? He has been drafted by a NHL-team as only the 13th Norwegian out of 16 players as of 2010, and has played for his nation during the World Juniors (both U18 and U20). There exists multiple sources about him, so I'm just wondering? =) lil2mas (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are multiple reliable sources - and we mean newspaper or magazine articles in major outlets, not hockey blogs or draft watch websites - which discuss Winkler in "significant detail," feel free to present them. Other players have passed the GNG without passing NHOCKEY.  Ravenswing  13:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NHOCKEY is more like an essay rather than a "guideline" – I mean, an ice hockey player doesn't have to necessarily pass WP:NHOCKEY in order to be notable on Wikipedia. In general, any article whose subject has wide coverage, not just in blogs or ice hockey team websites, but in ice hockey magazines, newspapers, etc, passes WP:GNG. An exact search of "Scott Winkler" on Google gives 45,000 results, though some of them may be irrelevant. HeyMid (contribs) 13:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NHOCKEY is not an essay at all, its a guideline. What you describe is a guideline. You are confusing guideline and policy I think. A policy you have to comply with, a guideline you do not. An essay is just one (or more) peoples opinion that is not necessarily the opinion of the community as a whole. Very different. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that NHOCKEY is an essay – I said that NHOCKEY is more like an essay; NHOCKEY is just a checklist for which ice hockey BLPs are generally considered notable in the first place. The exception is, I think, if the player has signficant coverage outside blogs and ice hockey team websites. If someone adds references that give Scott Winkler significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider my current vote. HeyMid (contribs) 14:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stay off tangents and let the AFD close. ccwaters (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what a guideline is...its not like an essay at all. And CC..its not hurting anything...this is pretty much a snow anyways...its just a wait for the end now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Djsasso, I think I got it – thanks. HeyMid (contribs) 14:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope so. NHOCKEY lists a set of criteria, just like most other notability guidelines.  Ravenswing  17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hernandez (intern)[edit]

Daniel Hernandez (intern) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable for actions during one event, the 2011 Tucson shooting. While there has been several news articles about him after the shooting, there is nothing to indicate that in the future he will satisfy WP:BLP1E. Atmoz (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pdonna's links, as well as other coverage, suggest that this person will not be keeping a low profile. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those links are still mostly focused on the shooting (BLP1E). If additional sources could be added to establish his notability in a separate topic (for example: his LGBT activism), that would strengthen the keep argument. KimChee (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sipple was notable not so much for his heroics, but for the poor way he was treated afterwards. I guess in the grander scheme of things, the news also focuses now on crazed gunmen rather than the heroes that stop them. In a year, we'll know whether Hernandez will remain a public figure, but at this point this just smacks of WP:RECENT. SDY (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons to Sipple is that of a gay American hero. Sipple was not an activist where Hernandez is and he is certain to get even more attention. Also this case brings up many interesting contrasts; the gay angle when marriage is such a hotbutton issue, being Mexican-American in a state known for anti-immigration laws and that he's so young and yet openly gay. BLP1E warns to not focus bringing embarrassment to someone known for only one event, not for being a national hero. This is a human interest story that has already become front page news in the Spanish-language media as well as the Gay media and the above links talk about the person beyond the event. "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." (see Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual#Media_attention) Pdonna (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Human interest story" is a huge red flag. With the 24 hr news operation, we could have articles on missing cats with multiple reliable sources. Every article about the shooting mentions Loughner. Maybe one in twenty mentions Hernandez. He was not an integral part of the event, and while we respect and honor his actions, we can do that in the context of the article on the shooting. SDY (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Human interest stories are what attract a readership to a media outlet. I wouldn't even have heard about this guy if the angles on him were presented as dry facts. They weren't, the LGBT press talks about his activism and speculates about his political career. The Spanish-language media takes a different spin about the Mexican-American hero. Etc. It is the job of the media workers to take a story and highlight the human interest aspects to attract humans to their brand. Possibly Hernandez is only mentioned in a fraction of the coverage about the entire event but that's because he was not the focus of the entire event. A lot of mainstream Time, CNN, PBS, NPR, Fox, LA Times, etc. Here's a few more; "ARIZONA SHOOTING: Daniel Hernandez goes from Giffords' intern to world hero"[12], "Giffords intern handling sudden fame after speech", By TERRY TANG,Associated Press,[13], here's a passage,
"Since Wednesday night, Hernandez has given more than 200 interviews. Trying to walk into the medical center where Giffords is hospitalized or anywhere else, he is surrounded by throngs of well-wishers. Before the memorial, the biggest group Hernandez had ever addressed was about 30 people. "And even that I think is a bit of a stretch," Hernandez told The Associated Press. Hernandez said the whole event still seems unreal. He can't even remember exactly what he said Wedneday night. "I ended up throwing away the speech I was going to be giving moments before I went up on stage. I think it's really disingenuous to be doing anything other than speaking from the heart." Hernandez had been an intern with Giffords' office for all of five days when the shooting happened at a district meet-and-greet outside a supermarket. He also volunteered as a teenager for her 2008 congressional campaign.
Born in Tucson to parents of Mexican heritage, Hernandez grew up the oldest of three children. His parents taught him and his two sisters from a young age to give back. "My mom is like that. She has a big heart," younger sister Alma Hernandez said. "My dad always thinks about the community. He always wants to do better. He always told us we have to always go back to our community where we came from to help out." Their father is retired and their mother has a side business baking cakes. Hernandez's talent for public speaking was developed in high school, where he participated in academic decathlons, Junior Honor Society and student council. Besides interning for Giffords, Hernandez was appointed as a commissioner at large to the City of Tucson Commission on Gay, Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Issues. He plans to help the organization with education outreach on issues such as bullying.
C. Michael Woodward, co-chair of the commission, said Hernandez had a resume bigger than some candidates twice his age. "It was pretty clear he was a mover and a shaker long before any of this happened," Woodward said. "The real heroes are the ones who dedicate themselves to public service but that's what he's planning to do anyway. He just got his hero badge early.""
Here's a whole column noting his being Mexican-American, "What If Daniel Hernandez Was Undocumented?"[14]
And a couple talking about the gay aspects, "Grace Under Fire"[15] notes the comparison to Mark Bingham, "Does Sen. John McCain Owe Gay Servicemen an Apology?"[16] delves into the loaded language and differing standards the US has for those who are openly gay. So there are plenty of sources that talk about Hernandez in depth and as a unique aspect to a huge tragic event where this material would likely not be as useful. And after 200 interviews BLP1E cannot apply, after dozens and dozens of media interviews, many covering background information on him having nothing to do with the event itself it would seem he has surpassed any concerns of notability and verifiability. Pdonna (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am moving to a "keep" based on your argument, Uzma Gamal. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Aircraft Company[edit]

Croydon Aircraft Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is insufficient refs to meet WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is an incredibly difficult AfD, both due to the recency of the events the article is covering, and because of the tensions surrounding it. Not only that, but the overarching guideline, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, is small on detail and large on jurisdiction. While I'd normally launch into a large rant on the need for people to make comments that actually cite policy, directly or indirectly, given the difficulties with this AfD I will restrain myself to a small rant. Guerillero's apparent belief that you need consensus on a related talkpage before you can make an article seems confusing, as is Diannaa's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - both him (her?) and Clarityfiend could do to take a read of that essay. Nakon's argument is, of course, invalid - I think I actually declined the original CSD myself (hopefully this doesn't make me seem to have some kind of COI).

The general argument that "talk page consensus elsewhere has not permitted this article to exist, so it should be deleted" or "talkpage consensus is that the content shouldn't be on this page, so it should be perfectly acceptable to keep it in a separate article" is particularly frustrating. Consensus, formed at one time, between one group of editors, can be changed and overruled. The editors at the talkpage were not asked if they were fine with this content existing here, nor where they asked if they were fine with this content existing at all. They were asked if the content should be removed from that sole article. I cannot comment on the number of talkpage contributors who turned up at this AfD, but suffice to say any consensus on keeping or deleting bits of content should, unless there are exceptional circumstances, not extend further than the individual page and content being discussed. You will note that WP:G4 covers content deleted via a deletion discussion, precisely because it is not appropriate to carry consensus over in this fashion.

Discounting those comments which aren't "proper" comments - i.e., not giving actual reasons and instead relying on WP:ILIKEIT and other non-arguments — consensus is fairly clearly in favour of deletion; even if we go back to Ye Olde Been Countinge Days, it turns out the same way. A few people have been suggesting it be kept because, should consensus change, it will be far more difficult to restore the content. Rest assured that I am prepared to restore bits and bobs temporarily to allow for its inclusion elsewhere, if consensus is reached that said inclusion is acceptable; just drop a note on my talkpage. As a final note, I did like Fetchcomm's keep/rename argument (a shame there isn't consensus for it) to move to an "Aftermath of the 2011 Tuscon Shooting" page and roll in everything else that may/will change due to the shootings - that seems like something which might appease both sides of the debate. I would advise you to get together and argue it out again, preferably taking Fetchcomm's argument (it's the least divisive option I can see) as a starting point. Should consensus be reached to include the content in some form, I will, again, be perfectly willing to restore segments for the move over. Ironholds (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting[edit]

Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of comments on the shooting. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this killing article is too long that several people said a section should be split off as is done here. However, already there are new sections about legislation and the aftermath, not just reactions.Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is just hours old and it is transforming away from the list. new sections have been added. New pictures, not found anywhere, added. Give it time and it can be transformed to a good article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, the knee jerk reaction is to delete, I understand but also note that several people think the reaction section to the killing article is too long. WP:SPLIT says if you think it is too long, to create a separate article. Do not violate Wikipedia rules by prohibiting a split. Thank you. Madrid 2020 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is not to split and plant elsewhere, but to get out the garden shears and start hacking away. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
let's also look at policy Too many of these votes are "I don't like it". Let's see if this is notable. The answer is that this is one of the few times that the reactions are notable. The death of Tim Russert started a whole lot of reactions. So did this. The return of Baby Doc Duvalier to Haiti, not much reaction. So notability, this qualifies. As far as merge, a lot of people don't want this shoved into the shooting article. Therefore, the answer is clear, which is keep even though some don't like it. This is not a beauty contest. True, this article could be improved a lot but nobody is going to waste their time under the threat of a gun(imminent deletion) Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a memorial. No victims names are listed. If the article is kept, there can be much further material about the gun debate, civility debate, as well as more analytical description of the widespread worldwide support for Giffords. Madrid 2020 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. This article is based on WP:RECENTISM and I was remiss in not mentioning it earlier. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not prefer a separate article under normal circumstances and share the POV fork concerns, but as the main article 2011 Tucson shooting is presently 93KB and growing, WP:SPLIT does allow for this and the Reactions section is the largest section of that article. the prose itself is only at about 27KB, so the length argument has not yet been met. KimChee (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC) / 01:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muboshgu- thanks for finding that guideline! I knew there had to be something somewhere that would cover this sort of situation. KimChee- I see your point, but I also wonder how much of that 27kb we really even need? I think what I'm trying to say (I never know what I'm trying to say) is that while such a split might be supported by policy, if we apply common sense we may see that this material is not really contributing to the encyclopedia. l'aquatique[talk] 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we PLEASE avoid the unfortunate gun-to-the-head metaphor? -- RoninBK T C 18:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to see avoided is this kind of wikilawyering in the "closing admin notes". Please state your opinion above and avoid trying to circumvent the debate by making these kind of courtroom-style closing statements, if at all possible. l'aquatique[talk] 21:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks to whomever fixed this... l'aquatique[talk] 00:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have to we wary of what we call consensus. By some definitions, the world consensus is communist dicatatorship since Russia and China comprise near 1.5B people, far more than the America's 0.3B. Wikipedia's rule mention notability, which this passes. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
False statement Jojhutton's statement is, unfortunately, false. As soon as a little is added, someone deletes it from the main article. This article prevents edit warring and is also notable. NOBODY disagrees that the reactions to the shooting are much bigger and notable than other crimes. The article is not just "I'm sorry" comments but has the potential to be much more. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? I disagree that this is any more notable than any other assassination attempt, mass shooting, etc. l'aquatique[talk] 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is much more and writing is on hold. Why slave and write and have the stuff thrown in the trash in a few days? There is commentary about political debate, Palin's involvement, details about how different and widespread the reactions, details of the memorial service, etc. There are also many pictures that aren't in the main article and can't be because they would overwhelm the article. Madrid 2020 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with edit as it ruins article, thus making it more likely a delete. It has already been established that the main shooting article editors do not want a reaction section or just a small one. Since this covers the topic in detail and adds things other than condolences, it is a worthy keep. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Walker[edit]

Tracey Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, I'm very happy to be proved wrong, but I'm calling hoax on this - or at least high level of exaggeration.

The article will have us believe that Tracey Walker was the first ever internet supermodel, with fansites and 2.5 billion downloads. The problem is there's not evidence of this whatsoever.

As I say, my biggest problem is that internet supermodels don't tend to disappear from the internet, and THE first one would surely have more presence.Scott Mac 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facebook page details a few notable claims. http://www.facebook.com/search.php?q=tracey+walker&type=users#!/profile.php?id=541889179 Personally I don't think enough independent reports could be found to assert a reportable level of notability, shes from Indiana perhaps theres more in local reports. Recently been creating online avators, albeit for a few notable peoples/companies. Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CV is impressive - the problem is it doesn't check out. [21] [22] [23] [24]. The only real presence is on usergenerated sites like myspace, facebook, and wikipedia.--Scott Mac 21:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, interesting person but not even if the detail is correct unless they are reported in independent wiki reliable locations, then she isn't wikikpedia notable for a bio. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A chance of what?--Scott Mac 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If striking isn't allowed, I should point out that the above SPA has been blocked as a CU confirmed sockpuppet – the above account (and !vote) is just one out of dozens of others by the same person. HeyMid (contribs) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striking of sockpuppets is fine. Striking of other SPAs are not. -- RoninBK T C 21:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Blashki[edit]

Phillip Blashki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable person. No independent references and no assertion in the article of why this person is notable. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to family tradition (he was my great grandfather) he and his wife arrived in Australia with five shillings and a doormat. At the end of his life he was a Melbourne City magistrate and his firm not only had supplied masonic regalia to many Australian notables but had also designed and made the Sheffield Shield which is still the cricket trophy fought for by all the States of Australia (and it bears a note of the maker's name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumbell (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Phiilip Blashki is synonymous with the history of Freemasonry in Victoria. Blashki held various offices in several Lodges over a period of 40+ years and was appointed District Grand Warden under the British Constitution. His business 'P. Blashki and Sons' which was established in 1958, is recognised as Victoria's (and one of Australia's) primary suppliers of Masonic regalia.
Phillip Blashki was a justice of the peace for many years and became actively invloved in the Victorian judicial system as magistrate of the city court. In 1914 he was one of Lord Mayor Hennesey's invited dignatories at the opening of the Melbourne City Court. As recognition for his work as a J.P., philanthropist and community leader, Blashki was one of the invited guests at the opening of the first federal parliament at the Exhibition Buildings.
Blashki helped in the foundation of the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers and was instrumental in founding and/or the early development of a number of communal and chariatble organisations (including the provision of seed funding in some instances). These included the Melbourne Jewish Aid Society, Melbourne Cemeteray Trust and Melbourne Freemeson's Homes.
While in his times having 14 children may not have been remarkable in itself, many of the children of Phillip Blashki, his 55 grandchildren and countless further decendants have themselves been, or currently are leaders in various fields of enterprise and community. User:Leigh.blashki|Leigh.blashki (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leigh.blashki (talk • contribs) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in archives of the Jeweish Museum of Australia, Melbourne. The small portable scales he used to weigh gold as a hawker are on display. His name is on the burial house (Metahar House) for Jews at Brighton cemetery where he was the first Trustee on the Bosrd, elected to represent Jews. The front page of the Melbourne daily newspaper "The Herald" carried his photo and a long story about him on October 21st 1916, as he was the Chairman of the first City Court Bench in Russell St. Most Australian newspapers have references about Blashki at some time. When he retired , at age 70, from duty as a Justice of the Peace at the City Court, an illuminated address was presented to him by the Prime Minsiter, Alfred Deakin, signed by 30 of the solicitors who worked with him. References include some out of print books from the 19th and 20th century. 'The Jews in Victoria an the Nineteenth Century' L.M. Goldman 1956, Rubinstein, W.D. and H.. Rubinstein 'The Jews in Australia: A Thematic History' 2 vols, William Heinemann, Port Melbourne, 1991. 'Phillip Blsshki; A Victorian Patriarch', Gael R. Hammer, 1986 ISBN 0 9589451 0 1', Victorian Governement Gazette in late 19th century."The Argus" in the 19th century. The quarterly journal of the Freemasons carried the story of the sesquicentenary of the arrival of the Blshki's in Melbourne as their lead article. The business P.Blashki & Sons, est 1858 in still in business today. One of the oldest surviving businesses in Melbourne. See also the foundation of the Victorian Chambers of Commerce. Also the story of tobacco in Australia.


Blashki was a founder of the Chevra Kadisha, the Melbourne Jewish burial society. Jewish Aid, the first Jewish welfare organisation. The Victorian governernement then then inivited him establish a similar Board for welfare of the State. A long list of his secular and Jewish achievements are in official obituaries.

The site needs to be less personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedsfield (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY As things stand it reads like a badly-written family history article you would find on an amateur genealogy website. It is unreferenced and is not written from a neutral point of view. In short it needs a complete re-write. If, as you say, the man is notable then you should apply the same amount of effort that you put into this AfD nomination to the article itself. WP:BOLD - if you care about it, go fix it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 00:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; The children's names are not important unless in their own right. I will be uploading the photo supplied, Courtesy of the Latrobe Library of Victoria, of the Opening of the City Court, Russell St, Melbourne, 20 January 1914. Blashki is in the centre. Attorney General, the Hon. D. MvKinnon, then the Chief Police Magistrate, P.J. Dwyer Esq, then Phillip Blashki, Chairman of the City Court Bench. To be uploaded in a few hours. I will also upload the photo of Blashki in regalia ss Hon. Past Deputy Grand Master, 1890. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedsfield (talk • contribs) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip's biographer - Gael Hammer - is unavailable this week. However she will be happy to fix and augment the entry next week (starting 24th Jan 2011), and to learn the ropes as she goes. There are in addition two cricket references (Chris Harte, A History of Australian Cricket 1993 at p. 176 and by the same author "The History of the Sheffield Shield, Allen & Unwin 1987 at pages 32-33 which both describe the process by which the Shield was made and describe Phillip Blashki) and which I'm now trying to figure out how to link to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacygumboots (talk • contribs) 03:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I see that Phillip Blashki is cited in as its maker early in the page about the Sheffield Shield. Lacygumboots (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Version 2 Hopefully this version is better! Mummy-whale (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION - good job rescuing the article, which is now looking healthy. I am very happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 07:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waste Not Technologies[edit]

Waste Not Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:30, 15 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, Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Legality of Southern Secession[edit]

The result was No consensus - page was deleted independently of AfD discussion.. VQuakr (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of Southern Secession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This thesis appears to be original research. It would be better to start over with an article based on published sources rather than try to improve this thesis. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McLaughlin Road[edit]

McLaughlin Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - Non notable road with no target for redirect ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future[edit]

List of animals from After Man: A Zoology of the Future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article treats very many (all?) "species" which were hypothesized to might evolve in in 50 mln years fron now in the book After Man: A Zoology of the Future. The species are treated in a way as if this fiction is a truth. I see (apart from the style issue of presenting fiction as truth) no encyclopedic value in this extensive treatment and regard it as a fan site. The species are not treated extensively in popular culture or science warranting inclusion of an article on that ground. The hypothesized species are furthermore mentioned in the main article. I realize wikipedia has (de facto) much lower standards for notability of lists than of articles, but in view of the treatment of the subject, with the list already in the main article (and the main article already merely describing book events), I have treated this list as an article here. Please note, I have proposed a very similar page for deletion last week and came across this one by looking at all deleted links following that deletion... L.tak (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mobility Network Laboratory[edit]

Mobility Network Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just don't see how this university laboratory can possibly be notable on its own. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The direction of this discussion changed significantly after the first couple of days. What looked like a clear "delete" has become a fairly clear "keep". The run of delete/redirect !votes in this discussion largely happened before (a) the article was expanded, and (b) it became clear that the speech and the process by which it was written was receiving a considerable amount of coverage and dissection by commentators and historians. After those developments (eg if a line is drawn in the discussion at about 17 January, when the developments happened), the consensus started trending quite firmly to keep. So while the numbers in the debate as a whole are pretty much even, the consensus now is to keep. Merges have also been proposed. However, I'm unable to discern any consensus to merge, particularly as, again, the large part of the merge !vote came early in the discussion. Also, real questions have been raised whether the merge proposals would be viable given the size of the target articles. Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial[edit]

Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not every speech Obama makes deserves its own page. This isn't his speech on race, or his speech to the Arab world. If he had spoken more extensively about the political environment, we'd have something to document. This speech was really just a simple memorial speech, which has gotten some positive analysis from people on all sides of the political spectrum, and can be covered in 2011 Tucson shooting in a couple of sentences. Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is the constant edit warring. There are people who are opposed to having such article and then cut out huge parts of the reactions section so they can say "see, it's not too big". Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wait, we actually have a bunch of articles on presidential speeches - it looks like the bar for this to be a separate article is pretty low. I'll check back in a few days and will change my vote if the article is improved. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RECENT. There is no evidence of persistent coverage of this event. The expectation is that it will last one news cycle. Clinton's speech at the Oklahoma city bombing doesn't have an article, nor does Reagan's speech after the Challenger explosion, and both of those were very fine speeches that moved the nation. Just because it's covered in the main article and not as a separate item doesn't mean we don't respect it. SDY (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment response- I have tried to begin amending that lacuna BD2412 by at least providing links to the pre and post ad lib transcripts. It is odd that with the polarized picture emerging on this page that the discussion page of the article was EMPTY until 30 minutes ago. I think the key to the article's retention may be seeing the international recognition of the significance of the speech. I hope all those who are voting 'Keep' are going to pitch in to make it a better article and maybe some erstwhile deleters too !--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional response I've added a summary of the content of the speech with many Obama quotes, added a section with comments on the notability of the speech by five historians, and tidied things up. The fact that we have no articles on such notable presidential speeches as Reagan's Challenger and Star Wars speeches, or Eisenhower's military-industrial complex speech, or Clinton's speech after the Oklahoma City bombing is not a reason to delete this article. Instead, it is reminder that this encyclopedia is a work in progress. We should create articles about those notable speeches, and also improve this article about this notable speech, as I am trying to do. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Individual presidential speeches can be encyclopedic topics, and would make great articles. -- Ϫ 05:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The burden is the other way; it shouldn't be kept until proven not to be notable, it should be deleted if not proven to be notable. This speech was added to Wikipedia due to WP:RECENTISM based on the remarks of pundits in the news cycle. If this speech goes on to end partisanship, then by all means reinstate it with the proper proof. Until then, it's just the President giving a nice speech and getting applause, and that is not enough for notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unprecedented positive reaction from the eminent is important, but the speech is notable also for its philosophy of transcendence. Recentism is about the flimsy and the controversial per its page.This is the opposite.Perhaps a section in the article citing the reactions of Philosophers would help--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge/delete doesnt warrant its own article and can easily be paraphrased into the reactions article as a subsection where the reactions tho the pspeech can be noted and a text of the speech can be ref'd or EL'd(Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
You want to merge this back into an article that is almost 100KB long? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response regarding recentism A careful reading of the essay WP:RECENT does not justify deleting this article. Here are a few sentences from that essay:
"Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "If we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."
One of Wikipedia's strengths is the collation and sifting through of vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations.
Finally, Wikipedia articles are often developed via on-line references, which may be temporary in nature. But by documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources can be found more easily later."
That reads like an argument in favor of keeping this article, not a reason to delete it. After reading WP:RECENT, please continue on to read WP:GNG, our general notability guideline, which says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article . . ." This topic complies fully with that most important of all guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fengyong University[edit]

Fengyong University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the Chinese Wikipedia article, this university no longer exists and has not existed since 1933. The Chinese Wikipedia article provides a little more information than the two sentences here, but not much more, and cites no sources. As I have no verifiable sources here, I think, reluctantly, I am asking for deletion, but an alternative is to redirect to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), which the Chinese Wikipedia article indicates the university was merged into — but, again, cited no source for that proposition for. Nlu (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie West[edit]

Jonnie West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

College basketball player whose notability seems to be inherited from his father. In 4 years at West Virginia, he's logged about 300 minutes on the court; a college athlete who's looking to the draft or all-american spot would get double that in one year without any issue; he hasn't even played in a good number of games for the team. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real San Luis FC[edit]

Real San Luis FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable peruvian football club

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Rich[edit]

Christian Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage in and reliable sources independent of this music producing duo. The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not make claims that pass WP:N for a WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Murphy[edit]

Roy Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability from third-party sources William Avery (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Mitchell (tennis)[edit]

Benjamin Mitchell (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:Notabilty (sports) for tennis players by both senior and junior criteria - no ATP main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, no world top three junior ranking, no junior grand slam event titles Mayumashu (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BEEInfoSTRIP[edit]

BEEInfoSTRIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam for a public monitoring tool. The author, Warren Louw has confirmed to me by e-mail that he works for BEEInfoSTRIP. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Independent reliable sources are non existent" is exactly the problem. If the BEEInfoSTRIP becomes widely used by the government or business, then there will be articles written about it in the business press, and things like that. That would demonstrate notability. In a Google search for "BEEInfoSTRIP", all the results were either (a) the BEEInfoSTRIP website itself, (b) social networking pages set up for the product, (c) results from Wikipedia itself or Wikipedia mirrors, (d) comments promoting the product on the Accountancy SA website. None of these demonstrate any attention having been paid to the product by anyone independent. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 UTC)
  • comment Would this be notable - "Press" The South African Broadcasting Corporation radio station SAfm interviewed the BEEInfoSTRIP information officer - Mr Lester September on Monday 6 Dec 2010 @ 10:05am (45min Audio Clip is available from the radio station or on the BEEInfoSTRIP website) "notable?" wlouw (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be a start, I suppose. One interview on its own doesn't reach the level of coverage required by the notability policy, though. - htonl (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Could you provide a link to the audio clip on the website? I looked but couldn't find it. - htonl (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS SAfm telephoned the BEEInfoSTRIP for the interview which means the news or interest of the BEEInfoSTRIP is spreading without any awareness campaigns, the BEEInfoSTRIP received 13000+ views and of recent listing on facebook a following and acceptance of +-700 people as per facebook groups, friends and "likes". If you will take the time to go to the internet pages note the profile of people, Black Management Forum , political parties, business people, people from TV news stations (ETV News Anchor: Robyn Smith) and others, National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson, Jay Naidoo and the list continues. The SAfm interview can be found on the Introduction page. Right-hand column, 2nd entry from the top under heading "News Events" wlouw (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Corvus cornixtalk can you please elaborate on your perception of conflict of interest (COI)? wlouw (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I do not presume to speak for Corvus, our conflict of interest policy states that: "[If] you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing; then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased)." Your language above, for example "we are the creators of the BEEInfoSTRIP", suggests that you are directly involved with the product. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what you're asking for here. On any article you can click on the "History" link at the top of the page and see who has edited that article. On all the articles you mention, as with most Wikipedia articles, there are many different people involved in the writing of the page. - htonl (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case I can assume that these companies or similar hire people to write about it or companies employ staff to write about it or people who love the companies write about it. I would be able to view the history tag and not know which of the people listed was neutral or not. wlouw (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Keep - You have correctly identified its subset being legislation; however, Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment is a scoring and accreditation system. The BEEInfoSTRIP is independent from this therefore cannot be influenced / biased. The BEEInfoSTRIP is independent to be able to report independently. It cannot be redirected. It stands alone as an audit. It cannot be seen to favour one political party over the other. Please qualify the "delete" you suggest as alternative - There are many wiki pages that can be cited as "private initiative". wlouw (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I addressed the COI above with Htonl. As per the Trademark definition, the trademark simply indicates the source and originality. Many wiki pages represent trademark inventions and products e.g. Barbie (lists of trademarks are available on the net). Wiki is full of examples. Please let me know of the part that sounds / reads promotional in your opinion so that it can be written more factual as the intent is. wlouw (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I saw above was that you said other people might have a COI. You did not address the concerns that you are somehow involved with the subject. As for trademarks, see Manual of Style: Trademarks. (Especially the part where you do not use the trademark sign unless there is good reason.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment He that is without any hesitation and confirm there are no other wiki pages on Wikipedia with COI, be the first to delete the BEEInfoSTRIP on Wikipedia for COI sake. Trademark denotes - its source / origin - its local -Proudly South African. wlouw (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The status of other pages on WP is not relevant here. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Could you please expand on what you're saying about trademarks above? I don't quite understand. Thanks, OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you admins for being mindful of a fair approach. Note 1 WP:OTHERSTUFF - refers "...similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist...", also states "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement...". Note 2 The BEEInfoSTRIP is unique to its application - cannot be compared as BEE in the SA Economy is a South African Government initiative. Note 3 If the trademark was seen as promotional - some info on Trademarks: “Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual lawful use of the trademark. These rights will cease if a mark is not actively used for a period of time.” wlouw (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not questioning what a trademark is, but the use of the trademark in the article. The manual of style says to not use the trademark symbol in the article without very good reason. See an article like Microsoft or Deutsche Bank, the article does not use the trademark symbol in conjunction with the name. As I understand it, only if this article were written by the company itself (or if it were advertising/etc) would it need to use the trademark symbol. (Unless of course you work for or on behalf of the article's subject, in which case you really shouldn't be doing that, COI and all.) OSborn arfcontribs. 00:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please see Microsoft and Microsoft Info box (RHS) slogan in Wikipedia. See “R” in a circle next to Microsoft name – (trademark). Note 1 Microsoft refers to a company AND products so does Deutsche Bank e.g. Deutsche Bank shares. The identities of their names are within their legal entity registrations and can be found in the form of (Pty) Ltd or AG, etc. The BEEInfoSTRIP falls within the legal frame of trademark rights (origin, source, use). Note 2 unlike the commercial names you cited, the BEEInfoSTRIP in all its documentation does not promote the sale of or anything to do with retail of the BEEInfoSTRIP. Note 3 The wiki pages cited for Microsoft etc have references, links, with sub-links to direct public commercial intent (Microsoft website, COI and all), but to quote you “The status of other pages on WP is not relevant here.” wlouw (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting indentation). The ® is present in the logo because that image was obtained from the Microsoft website. You will not find "®" or "™" anywhere in the text of the article. Anyway, the trademark issue is not really important.
The CoI problem is not that an article links to the company it is describing; of course the Microsoft article links to microsoft.com; it would be ridiculous if it didn't. A CoI problem with that article would be if, for example, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were making major edits to the article. Can you not see the difference? - htonl (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Accidentally removed htonl's comment for a few seconds there, sorry.) Please understand that promotion is not just trying to overtly sell someone something. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Keep in mind that all source information your see and hear about Microsoft was generated by Microsoft. Do you agree that factual information of Microsoft and their products e.g. Microsoft_Windows_XP on Wikipedia (assumed written by people who love Microsoft) has its primary source for credibility and for authentication sake directly from Microsoft where applicable? If said information did not, the entire wiki page would be in question. Accuracy of information and the factual nature thereof almost suggests that MS could have very well written the wiki pages themselves (who knows). It is required to have accurate information published about the BEEInfoSTRIP and should be irrespective of the person as long as there is maturity and discretion of intent, one of which is not to abuse the Wikipedia for commercial purpose but as part of a tool to empower a nation. Have you recognized ill-intent with regard to the BEEInfoSTRIP? Please let me know where; for immediate amendment. wlouw (talk) 0:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"All source information" about Microsoft was not generated by Microsoft; have you looked at the list of references in that article? It cites 91 different sources, of which only ten or so are from Microsoft. In any case, I'm not going to discuss Microsoft or any other articles any further; as OSborn has pointed out, even if other editors are breaking the rules, it does not excuse your doing so. It is entirely clear, from the language that you have used above, that you have a direct commercial interest in the BEEInfoSTRIP, and therefore that you are violating the conflict of interest policy. Asking for specific instances of ill-intent is disingenous, given that the entire article is written as a blatant advertisement.
Nonetheless, a conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion, and therefore this whole argument is a distraction. The reason for deletion remains that the article lacks any evidence of notability, and the one radio interview you have pointed out is not sufficient to establish it. I will not discuss any further anything not relevant to the deletion discussion. - htonl (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stunners (group)[edit]

The Stunners (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability. Sources are only primary or directory listings for the most part, and a search for further sourcing showed nothing but false positives. No real notability; just having individually notable members doesn't mean the band is automatically notable. WP:BAND #6 is not and never will be carte blanche if they fail all the other criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the discography does not allege that they have released any albums at all. I make it one EP, one promo single, one proper single and a track on a compilation album. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the Bieber connection needs clarification. If they were second on the bill then that does count in their favour. If they were lower down the billing as "other special guests", or the like, then it doesn't. If they got any RS reviews off the tour then that would be a big help. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urm actually Allmusic entry is different. I'm sure MTV used to copy from Allmusic? Mattg82 (talk) 02:06, 15 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, Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of oldest Baseball Hall of Fame members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trivial way to look at the members of the BBHOF. How the HOFers rank in terms of age does not receive significant coverage. Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I could see an article listing all of these folks with a sortable table including birthday, if someone really felt that the information was important. Matchups 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose and retitle - Convert this into a sortable list of all members of the hall of fame by date of birth, also including dates of death for those who died and computed ages. The main Hall of Fame list doesn't contain these biographical details, which are notable enough -- the problem with the current list is that focusing on the current ages of living members is pretty trivial. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't reconfiguring it to include everyone's DOB also be trivial? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally disagree with that idea because DOB isn't a criteria for making the HOF, and we list the length of the individual's career already, which is far more important. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 7 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, Spartaz Humbug! 16:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Malton[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Russell Malton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who still has not played in a fully pro league and who fails WP:N Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this doesn't qualify as a G4 as this is different from the deleted version (which was basically two short unreferenced sentences). Bettia (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, delete as he fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played fully-professional football and lacks any significant media coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 12:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Raikuna Williams[edit]

Josephine Raikuna Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Davidcannon (talk · contribs) has recently restored this bio claiming that the woman is world famous in Fiji. But Davidcannon apparently thinks she is so famous as not to need references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made a couple of changes and added in a source, but I can't see significant coverage in independent sources. - ManicSpider (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. WaltonOne 22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ark (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per decision to relist at AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 30. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This reasoning is invalid and the vote should probably be ignored. This got relisted because I requested that it be restored so I can add a bunch of reliable sources. BEFORE I added the sources, this guy voted that it should be deleted for lacking sources!? How about letting me add those sources before you tell us there are none buddy? Mathewignash (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see the sources that have been added, unfortunately they are not accessible via internet but given their titles I doubt they directly address the subject of this Wiki article in depth beyond passing mentions to warrant its own article. That the toys/cartoons are notable is undeniable, but particular elements of Transformers are less likely to have their own notability according to WP:GNG. My delete !vote stands.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations 5, 6, 10 and 12 have page numbers. Citations 4, 7, 8, and 9 don't need them as they are links to web pages. Most of the rest came e-copies of articles that don't have page numbers from their original printing included. Mathewignash (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You mean like the film review where the reviewer laments the Ark being left out of the 2007 film sort of commentary? Mathewignash (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which review?Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Number 11. Mathewignash (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is university Wire, is it RS? Also there is no page number, so the citation is incompleate. It seems that Uwire is not a publication, its a media disimination service. Where was the origional material published (I was not aware that college newpapers were RS). I suspect its not RS unless it can be established that the material was published by a repected journel.Slatersteven (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I got it from local university. Student reporters sharing articles. here is their web page. http://uwire.com/about/ Mathewignash (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 looks like a movie heads-up. We're looking for an essay focusing on this ship's concept and development, a chapter in a published text commenting on its design, a magazine article explaining how the subject is a reflection of or impacted other elements of fiction, etc. A passing reference in a back-end paragraph of some some college kid's newspaper article? Not so much. --EEMIV (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Student newspapers (and equivalent) are virtually never reliable sources. But for what it's worth I'd say the fact that they didn't bother to include it in the movie is, if anything, evidence that this isn't even especially important in the Transformers universe and further speaks against including it in a general-interest encyclopedia rather than the contrary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's hardly a fair statement since it was deleted with NO THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES before, and now it has several. Mathewignash (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the deletion review to revive the article, the following case was made:

This clearly helps establish notability in three reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original article had NO SOURCES. Now to has many, and somehow you "see no signifigant improvement"? That doesn't seem like an honest or fair statement. Mathewignash (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Acquisition Syndrome[edit]

Gear Acquisition Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A jocular essay about a jocular neologism that Google Books confirms did indeed catch on, to a small and unremarkable extent. There could be a kernel of psychological interest to the concept, even though there is none to the article. (Perhaps it could be redirected somewhere, though not to "Acquisitiveness", as this redirects to the unsourced stub "Acquisitiveness (Phrenology)" [really]; and neither "Charles Foster Kane" nor "Imelda Marcos" gives me any idea.) I realize that Wikipedia is a dictionary when it comes to speech acts ("Fuck", "Kuwabara kuwabara", "LOL", etc etc), but I don't think it yet is one for the general ingredients of bulletin-board banter; and what with all its waffly accretions, this is anyway a crap (and prolix) dictionary definition. Hoary (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was complete, as it left my hands. It was then dismantled. Hmmf! But thank you for recompleting it, Mr Bot. -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 7 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, -- Cirt (talk) 17:00, 14 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, Spartaz Humbug! 14:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publitas[edit]

Publitas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant products have been created by this company, mostly a summary of mayor companies who use this product. Article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. Writer has written same article in Dutch Wiki. Dqfn13 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No significant products have been created by this company? The e-Publisher is clearly listed as one of their products and is briefly described. It seems like you are contradicting yourself. First you state there are no significant products created (I assume because you think there is not enough information about it) and then you say the article is mostly about the product and not the company itself. There is information about the number of employees, date founded, founders, the industry it operates in, and the type of business. What more do you want? Last week someone created an article about Publitas with three paragraphs of text describing the company's main product (the e-Publisher) and it was deleted after four days. It is for that reason I decided to keep this article short and concise. Other Wikipedians such as Elizium23 have checked this page (who previously did not approve of the older version of the page that was deleted) and they did not tag this page for advertisement purposes. Perhaps it's just you who doesn't understand what this article is really about. Please remove the tag for deletion and have someone else review it before you decide to tag it again.Adsx27 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Peridon, so far I have been unable to find any English sources to reference this article because the company is not that famous in English speaking countries. Furthermore, if referencing is so important, could you please explain to me why the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texterity is still on Wikipedia? What part in the text would you like to see with a reference? At no point do I quote anyone nor do I state any statistics: I have merely paraphrased/summarized what I know about the company and its product based on what I've read on the company's website(s). I could cite the company's own website(s), but I understand that that's not allowed either. If you could specifically show me which part you would like to see with a credible reference, I will do my best to find it, whether it is in English or in Dutch. Hope you can help. Asdx27 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsx27 (talk • contribs) [reply]
PS "Perhaps it's just you who doesn't understand what this article is really about." I think I do really understand.... Peridon (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put this article up for deletion here, and in the Dutch language, and for now it looks a lot like it'll be deleted there within at least two weeks. But there is at least two've said it is spam and should be deleted 'now!'. Dqfn13 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miegakure[edit]

Miegakure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software: coverage seems largely to spring from its mention in a web comic, not a reliable source. Other than that it was a runner up in a minor contest. Not clear it will ever be notable: few independent games make much impact. But if it is that can be revisited after the game is released: WP is not a crystal ball. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in any way knowledgeable about the WP requirements for notability at all, but there is some stuff I think might qualify as notability - it's been covered on Rock Paper Shotgun here (not sure about this one, it is a blog even if it's a blog by well-known gaming journalists), by the PCGamerUK podcast here, and I think I remember it being covered in the print edition. Plus, being nominated for an Independent Games Festival award is actually a pretty big deal. Things like Darwinia, Audiosurf, World of Goo, and Machinarium have been award winners there. Like I said, I've no idea if that actually means it meets the verifiability criteria. Gonna attempt to find it in old PCGs now. Supersheep (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Pollio[edit]

Silvio Pollio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP vio attack piece written in such a way as only to disparage subject, "oh and by the way he's an actor too". Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up. Subject is not notable for his criminal record, else we'd have millions more articles. This type of article is bad for Wikipedia. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, else I wouldn't have brought it here. Do you think I am stupid? That's been your angle since you first began to vex me yesterday.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since by your own admission your English is sketchy, I'm going to assume you missed the part about "Needs to be blanked and written from the ground up."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are stupid. I don't know who you are and I don't care who you are. I'm judging the encyclopedic potential and value of an article here on Wikipedia, not your intelligence. I found two referenced articles tagged as ((db-attack)) without further explanation. I removed the tag at this article and I left there the edit summary: rmv the ((db-attack)) tag, the article is referenced by reliable sources. My comment at the other article was similar. The discussion continues here. No problem. I'm really really sorry if you feel vexed or if you think my action was hostile against you. It is perhaps caused by different cultural background, it didn't come to my mind how offensive my comments could be. Please, accept my deepest apologies and let me know if you feel this is insufficient - I'll do anything to alleviate this embarrassing situation. I hope my response is comprehensible. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can blank the article and start a new and more balanced version. Do you want to delete the article together with its history? Is there any false information? In my opinion, the article is simply unbalanced. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tunisian general election, 2011 non-admin close. NortyNort (Holla) 01:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Tunisian presidential election[edit]

Next Tunisian presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a news report of current political unrest in Tunisia. PROD was removed by initial author. Cind.amuse 12:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the AfD'd article created the 2011 one.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and close.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you said. Redirect and close da thang. Cind.amuse 00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior cats births and deaths[edit]

Warrior cats births and deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm assuming this is a how-to or cheat guide for some kind of computer game or book series. However it isn't fully clear from the article itself. Travelbird (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Guoyou[edit]

Sun Guoyou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur astronomist which recently discovered a nova. Other purported discoveries are unsourced, as is most of the article. Questionable whether this is enough to pass WP:BIO Travelbird (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure of how the notability guidelines cover astronomers, so I'll stay out of the keep vs. delete thing, but I'll just note that I had much more success finding reports on the astronomical findings listed in the articles searching under the name "Guoyou Sun" - is it possible the name in the article is transposed? - ManicSpider (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this person is Chinese, "Sun" is his last name, and "Guoyou" his first. If you are looking at international sources, they may list him the other way around.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Online Alışveriş Trendi[edit]

2010 Online Alışveriş Trendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Turkish language OR or copyvio article which discusses online trends in 2010. Not encyclopedic Travelbird (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Northern Cyprus[edit]

List of Presidents of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability since these "Presidents" are only recognised by the Republic of Turkey and the "TRNC". Lack of independent citations that recognise these "Presidents". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [they have no independent citations/references outside of the sphere of self-interest of the Republic of Turkey and its "TRNC" annexe] as such these subjects are not notable on English Wikipedia:

President of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Derviş Eroğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mehmet Ali Talat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rauf Denktaş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk De Mexico[edit]

Hawk De Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purported airline with zero Google hits. Except for that one list given I cannot find any trace of them or that they actually fly. The other sources given are non-reliable (Youtube videos) Travelbird (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable for the awards hs has received, the books he has published, and the coverage he and his books have received in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Blacker[edit]

David Blacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author which won one minor award for one book. Travelbird (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. How are articles about the subject and his works in national newspapers "extremely minor"? And how does the State Literary Award not pass WP:BK criterion 2 (for the book) and WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 (for the author)? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The RS offered are nothing more than two small newspapers, both of them in Sri Lanka, and the "State Literary Award" hardly fulfills the "prestigious literary award" criterion of WP:BK--the fact is that 39 of these "State Literary Awards" are given out in Sri Lanka every year, and that even in Sri Lanka they are considered something of a joke [42]. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So you're saying that three well-established national newspapers are not reliable sources, but an anonymous blog posting is? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Aly Muhammad Aga Khan[edit]

Prince Aly Muhammad Aga Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

10 year old son of a religious leader. As he fulfills no function and isn't scheduled to take over from his father either. I don't see how this passes WP:BIO Travelbird (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no actual indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Njenga[edit]

Adrian Njenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minor film director that doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. I nominated this version of the article for speedy deletion, and although the article has since been expanded, I still can't find much coverage about him or the movies he directed. It doesn't help that most of the wikilinks for his films lead to general terms with the same name. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen O'Reilly (Rugby)[edit]

Stephen O'Reilly (Rugby) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

People far more informed than me on all-things rugby have tried and failed to reference this article, and even found that the supplied reference was incorrect. It is also questionable if a non-international rugby player is notable at all. Delete unless a reliable source can be found. Possible hoax. The-Pope (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Hammer Rage[edit]

Intense Hammer Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this falls under WP:BLP1E (the band is not a living person but the members are). All the coverage has been from the legal issues surroundin the importation of one of their albums. Nothing here satisfies any of the wp:music points except #1 but that falls under the one event thing mentioned above. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnau Brugués-Davi[edit]

Arnau Brugués-Davi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

appears to fail WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 torture methods of the middle ages[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Top 10 torture methods of the middle ages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-sourced original research; violates WP:NOT and WP:NOR mhking (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i added proper citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llease (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this article? Are you trying to list the top ten "most painful" methods? Because such a list violates WP:NPOV. It could be merged with an article about torture methods in general, however. Mr. Anon515 04:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What not to do both with an article and in real life.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Template:Humor itself:
This template should never be used on pages in the article namespace, since it should never include any non-factual or non-encyclopedic articles. Only use it in other spaces such as Wikipedia namespace.
In other words, the template does not apply to actual Wikipedia articles, only to Wikipedia's internal discussion. JIP | Talk 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The method can, and in some cases is already included within Medieval instruments of torture under the instrument. The article is also on methods as well and the "instruments" section could be renamed within the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Lian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ah Lian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides that the article is uncited and seems a bit (or more than just a bit) unencyclopedic in tone. Looking at the previous AfD it seems to me that the result should have been "delete" not "no consensus" based on the arguments presented. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 17:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus[edit]

List of diplomatic missions of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability and lack of independent citations. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States[edit]

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Representative Office to the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. There are no references cited that make the Representative Office itself notable. The only references cited concern a Class Action that includes this office. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [of lack of notability and no independent references cited]:

Constitution of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Expression[edit]

Mormon Expression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a website/podcast/blog, let alone fulfilling the requirements of WP:GNG. PROD was removed, sources given are at least an order of magnitude below covering rule 2 on WP:WEB#Criteria. tedder (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point is that sources have been added. Isn't about ITSAWombat24 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? They are primary sources and self-published/blogs. They are not reliable sources, they are sources indicating this exists, nothing more. There are zero reliable sources establishing WP:WEB or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do explain how this is religiously motivated and how it is censorship. Content that is from a positive or negative point of view still needs to meet the notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT. Where did you hear of it? Any chance it was in a publication that would qualify as nontrivial coverage and could be a usable source? VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math[edit]

Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable pilgrimage site, too small and have no independent reliable sources to comply with the policy on inclusion. Wikidas© 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if there was an independent article or a book written about the subject there could be a reason, or a possible reason to keep it. There is however no evidence of any notability, as the google search shows, thus delete is the only possible solution. I am not opposed to userfication, if there is some evidence in the third party reliable sources, even if they are not accessible, but these needs to be shown or listed here. Wikidas© 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of interest can be attributed to it being completely unknown object without any attraction or position in any sources? --01:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math

I firmly believe that the proposed deletion of this article - Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is nothing but a biased attitude of some user/person who probably prefers ISKCON or A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada over it (this article). In fact, the Hare Krishna Movement started from Nabadwip - the birth place of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu - where Sri Devananda Gaudiya Math is situated, it is also known as “the mother of the Gaudiya Maths” and it was founded by Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Goswami, who was a disciple and follower of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura and a notable friend of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada too (a Krishna follower brother of Bhaktivedanta Swami). A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami founded ISKCON after going to the West so he become notable, as it appears, even than his Guru or teacher and also than his Krishna follower brothers! Here 'notability' appears to be a relative word.

However, irrespective of what the google search shows but the above mentioned facts clearly reflect said Math's status and position in Hare Krishna Movement by the Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

It may be noted that since the Math is the mother of the Gaudiya Maths where the truly religious administrators (monks) of this Math devotes them more in religious activities rather than endeavouring to market their movement/religious activities in the West, unlike A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the ISKCON founder did, so it (the Math) may not appear in google the same way ISKCON does but this incident certainly does not mean that it is a non notable pilgrimage site! I have personally visited the Math and it is huge, during "Nabadwip Parikrama" thousands and thousands of devotees eat, rest and stay in ths math.

Even after this, if this article is deleted then that would be an act of prejudice and also an un-thought act. Nothing more I wish to say about proposed deletion of said article.

Snthakur ( সৌমেন্দ্র নাথ ঠাকুর ) (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody stops you from expanding the Gaudiya Math article. But you prefer to ignore it for some reason. This particular Matha (out of hundreds) is not particularly notable. See: WP:V. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I am sure you visited this building. But there are no sources for your claims. Can you please use google books or some other source and find more sources that are published by reliable publishers? Thank you, and please see the answer to your question on your talk page, that you have pasted here. Wikidas© 10:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cleaning agent. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 01:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of elemental cleaning agents[edit]

List of elemental cleaning agents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly pointless list that would be better as a category or infobox. Logan Talk Contributions 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NewsCenter[edit]

NewsCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This isn't an individual show, but a marking used by a huge variety of completely unrelated news programs, none of which has standalone notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Maria von Trapp. Mandsford 00:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonore von Trapp[edit]

Eleonore von Trapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested. Member of the von Trapp singers (and notable as such), but is not notable as an individual. Notability is not inherited, and individual notability is not asserted in the article. MSJapan (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kschzt[edit]

Kschzt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician who appears to fail WP:BAND; no relevant coverage cited in the article or found on Google.  Sandstein  11:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bd2412 T 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

List of rock instrumentals[edit]

List of rock instrumentals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys Snack Foods[edit]

Guys Snack Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company isn't notable. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Mendelsohn[edit]

John Mendelsohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Interesting, intelligent and wickedly funny guy. Brush-ins with fame a-plenty, and with wise and witty anecdotes to match. Fails WP:GNG, unfortunately. Shirt58 (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. bd2412 T 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Parchizadeh[edit]

Reza Parchizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. No third party sources provided. The article is more like a résumé than a Wikipedia article. Farhikht (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's "determination" plays any part in the matter: the subject does not appear to have received adequate coverage in reliable third-party sources, the principal test of notability. If I'm wrong and such sources exist, please bring them forward; if they do not, what will form the basis for the article are how will readers be able to verify its claims? The reason for the lack of such sources is immaterial: without them, there is nothing to construct an article out of except original research, which is not acceptable, and primary sources, which are not sufficient. And if I am wrong and you are neither the subject of the article not also editing as User:Xayyam, you have my apologies. Nevertheless, the timing and coincidental common interest are curious. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are videos of him conducting conferences at Tehran University (which might have been uploaded by himself, since the account's name on YouTube is rezaparchizadeh; or maybe not) a few of whom I personally attended. The videos belong to Tehran University Archive, and it is quite obvious from the manner of photography that they are formal takings. Just search for videos under his name on Google. Xayyam (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* See the links below for the pictures of the material by or about Parchizadeh, extracted from Tehran University Archive, that was never published:

Timelesstune (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Peridon. Moreover, this deletion discussion has become cluttered with material not directly related its sole purpose: to determine whether the article Reza Parchizadeh is to be kept or deleted. It is not a forum to discuss competing definitions of fame or even the merits of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These policies and guidelines already exist and have proved quite durable and serviceable. The issue is how they ought to be applied to the question of whether to keep or delete this article. Any material not directly addressing this question ought for clarity's sake to kept out of this discussion. Discussions about improving the article and suggestions for sources belong at Talk:Reza Parchizadeh, not here.
The principal task for this particular discussion is to measure the subject of this article against accepted standards of notability. In short, if the topic has been subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, it may merit a standalone article. If it has not been, it doesn't. The reason such sources (whether online or on paper is no matter) are not available is not relevant.
Occasionally, participating in Wikipedia requires one to consider complex questions. This is not one. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankless Toil: My Old Poems Revisited at Morebooks
Timelesstune (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:RS. Apart from the banning lists, everything given as a reference fails this policy. Threats of blocking ought to worry you only if you are running multiple accounts. If not, it doesn't apply to you. Get this straight - I'm trying to help you. So is Rrburke. There must be some coverage in Iranian communities outside Iran - but not blogs, etc. Read the policy and then see what you can find. Peridon (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The List of Articles by Reza Parchizadeh
Mythbreak (talk) 24:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is asking you to read policies threatening? (Don't answer that...) Please point out where I have threatened you. I made a point I very often do at Articles for Deletion about the use of multiple accounts. As I said, if you aren't doing it, it doesn't apply. If you are doing it, stop it and stick to one account. We sometimes get flooded with single purpose accounts who all say the same thing. It doesn't work, and just makes the discussion harder to follow. By the way, that is the first time I've been compared to Jehovah. I'm more likely to be threatened with his wrath by people who seem to think they know what he is thinking. Peridon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not a head count, and standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions are irrelevant. If many new accounts appear, a sockpuppet investigation may result, and those found to be using multiple accounts may be blocked from editing." Well, I am a new account holder, and I used standards of notability outside Wikipedia's definitions. The other new guy may choose to speak for himself since what you say applies to him as well to a great extent, but on my part, did I ever pretend that I was not interested in the subject? Anyway, what's the point of creating a collective and open-to-all enterprise and then trying to keep an exhausting hold on it when you know people would inevitably try to further their personal ends through that, and that they would tell lies about that? And, people could sound Godly, especially when they are most unaware of it. By the way, as -- Rrburke stated just a few paragraphs above, I think "this deletion discussion has [again] become cluttered with material not directly related to its sole purpose: to determine whether the article Reza Parchizadeh is to be kept or deleted!"Xayyam (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
As the issue is not his productivity but whether he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, how prolific he might be is wholly irrelevant. Here are a few links that will help you understand what standards a subject like this is measured against in judging notability:
May I also ask you to clarify whether Timelesstune, Xayyam and Mythbreak are indeed three distinct people? If not, you may be unaware that Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of multiple accounts for most purposes. Please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for clarification. Please be aware that the question can be answered with a high degree of confidence by a process known as Checkuser (please see Wikipedia:CheckUser)
Finally, could you confirm that none of you has a close connection to the subject of this article? I ask this because Timelesstune and Xayyam have each uploaded media files to Wikimedia Commons that appear to belong to Mr. Parchizadeh himself, and you have licensed these files as your own work, claiming in your license tags to be their copyright-holder. If you do have a close connection to the subject, you are considered to have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, if you do have such a conflict you are strongly discouraged from creating or editing articles related to your conflict, and from participating in a deletion discussion such as this one. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mythbreak (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability ≠ fame. Primary sources do not establish notability, and an online poetry site that permits user uploads and lacks any editorial oversight would not be considered a reliable source in any event. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is Wikipedia, not Wikileaks. These copyright violations will need to be deleted. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Implied approval is inadequate. Unless and until the copyright-holder grants explicit permission to publish these images under a free license, they are considered copyright violations. The process for granting permission is set out at Commons:OTRS. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bd2412 T 18:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The nerdist podcast[edit]

The nerdist podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


I did some more research, after getting over my initial misspelling of the name, and I think I agree with TenPound Hammer. Even spelled correctly, the only google hits that came up were for the podcast's official site, blogs, and other non-reliable secondary sources. Searching it on Google News produces only one hit, which was an interview at the AV Club Website. So, my opinion is back to delete. Okay, I'm really embarrassed. I misspelled the page's name in my google check. So, although the page is unreferenced, the page's subject is notable. Sorry for the mixup; I think this article should be Kept. Not notable, no references. I did a google check, and all that came up was blogs and the like. Epass (talk) 21:36, 8 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) 00:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nominator is an SPA with an WP:IDONTLIKEIT !vote. No reason for deletion given; WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Blue[edit]

Prussian Blue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, exists only to be a vandal target. No one has cared to look at or edit this article for the last couple years except occasional vandals/trolls. I can't see any good reason to keep it here. Souhletonya (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)— Souhletonya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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