< 15 January	17 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CenTex ASPA[edit]

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

Local chapter of a national organization. While the national organization is certainly notable, there's no real assertion that this particular chapter is significantly notable. Zachlipton (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to indicate that this regional chapter of a national organisation is independently notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criterion G12. The text was copied from a website about the subject; see also Maria Maragkoudaki. —C.Fred (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Μαρία Μαραγκουδάκη[edit]

Wrong language. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:43, 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 Phoenix Project and deleting history per consensus Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Project[edit]

The notability of this topic (an organization) is in serious doubt. References were spam links. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is kept, it needs to be renamed to The Phoenix Project (Boston) since there are other ones listed on the disambiguation page Phoenix Project. After it is renamed, this name should redirect to the disambiguation page. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is deleted, it should redirect to the disambiguation page, since there are uses listed there. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is indistinguishable from The PhoenixGroup. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:35, 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 delete per consensus and policy. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gershon Wiesenfeld[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Recently deleted via WP:PROD, subsequently re-created. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article because as a founding dean of an institution of higher learning, rabbi weisenfeld passes wikipedia's criteria for notability, especially based on precedent set by other articles dealing with Rosh Yeshiva on wikipedia. Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic is currently regarded as one of the most prestigious (by many count it is second to Paterson, headed by Rabbi Weisenfeld's own son-in-law). The esteem with which Rabbi Weisenfeld is held is evident from some of the links which are included in the article. Do a quick google search on him. Of course, I must disclose that I am not impartial to this issue because I researched and wrote the article. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rachak: Thanks for your input. You, or anyone, are not "required" to disclose your "qualifications" to have a say in this AfD, and because you are the creator of the article it can lend credibility to the subject because of your research. Special request, since you mention those Google hits, why not add the suitable ones in to the article with any suitable information they carry. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTABLE Haredi rabbi and founding rosh yeshiva of the very notable Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic that was established in 1973 that is vibrant and that still continues. I have upgraded the article with its references and it is at least a very good ((Rabbi-stub)) like many others in Category:Rabbi stubs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references added to the article consist of a letter to the editor of a newspaper, a publication where the sum total of content about the subject is "The Passaic Yeshiva, known worldwide for molding true bnei Torah, was established in 1973 by Rabbi Chaim Davis and Rabbi Gershon Weisenfeld zt'l, who joined as rosh kollel. When Rav Weisenfeld took ill right before the Yeshiva was to open, HaRav Meir Stern joined the hanhalla.", a forum post naming him as the husband of his wife and another similar name check in an article about his wife. This is hardly significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I have been unable to find anything better. The degree of vibrancy of the yeshiva that he co-founded is not part of our inclusion guidelines. As an aside, both our article and the sources added seem to be unsure about the spelling of the subject's name. Maybe if we could establish the correct spelling it would be easier to find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Phil thanks for your input. Any good yeshiva is established by solid and notable men, especially modern yeshivas in America in the post-Holocaust era, that are all pioneering ventures. Therefore a more constructive suggestion would be to Merge and Redirect to the main Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic article, that itself is not more than a stub, thereby not losing some valuable information pertaining to it from this brief biography of one of its key founders. Thanks for your consideration. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This art has the same problem as the one on Tzvi Berkowitz and undoubtedly numerous others: it is nothing more than a Boosterism article having no real WP:RS, only pointers to web sites and supporting testimonials. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Hi Agri, the case you mention was a "Keep" for good reasons. It's not "boosterism" it's a reflection of true humility by people who are not media or publicity hounds. A rosh yeshiva is a rarity and there are very few of them therefore they gain notability status, but the question remains how to quantify that to satisfy the still-evolving methods of WP that cannot measure such things yet adequately. Such scholars are averse to publicity and are not on show but their notability in Torah Judaism is beyond a doubt. The problem is that WP does not have the ability to measure the true notability of religious leaders in Judaism. There needs to be more debate and input from editors with know how, such as at WP:TALKJUDAISM to get a balanced picture, even then it's not easy. IZAK (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right in that that article was a "keep", but I disagree that it was for good reason. I might quote a reply to you made by David Eppstein in that AfD: "All of a sudden this article had a batch of completely inane votes based on WP:OTHERSTUFF (yours) and WP:MAJORITY (most of the others). They add nothing to the discussion and should be avoided; we need verifiable reasons why he's important enough to warrant an article, not just more Wikipedia editors saying so without explaining why." In other words, this is the same sort of special pleading you've given on many occasions in the past. It basically claims that we should ignore WP conventions that require WP:RS and evidence of notability and should simply instead take your word that such a person is notable because we ourselves are unqualified to render an informed opinion. Sorry, but that's nonsense. This article has no real WP:RS and no real evidence of notability. It should be deleted unless such can be furnished. I will happily and humbly change my position on this article if sources and evidence are added! As for the Berkowitz article, it's still in the same sorry shape and should be deleted as well, but that is of course another matter. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - Hi Agri, thanks for responding, but your are wrong, and I will prove to you why. Before I do, let me make perfectly clear that I have initiated and support deletions, but one has to know enough about the subject and not rely on technicalities of WP policies to build an encyclopedia, and before one is going to get into a lengthy debate that involves deleting information about any subject and be taken seriously. So: 1 Wikipedia relies on editors who are presumed and relied upon to have expertise in their fields, as ascertained by other editors they have edited with in that field usually over a number of years. They do have insight that a person ignorant of that field lacks. 2 It is not "special pleading" for editors who know a field of knowledge to say, hang on, let's not rush here, this is a worthy encyclopedic subject, and that it needs time, don't rush to delete. This applies to any field. I would not go into subjects to do with Category:Christianity or Category:Hinduism that I am not expert in and get involved in AfDs there for the heck of it and spout WP "policies" -- I would become very unpopular if I did -- and they have thousands of similar weak bios and articles that would be deleted but still stay, simply because they may still be proven to have value. 3 That's why WP itself has mechanisms to stop early or premature deletions of articles under construction by tagging them with various templates such as ((Stub)), ((Refimprove)), ((Expert-verify)) (that actually requests input from EXPERTS in that subject and as an expert -- based on my WP editorial history alone -- I am telling you this article needs to be kept!!!) see all the many hundreds of choices of templates to request more and improved work on articles constructively at Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates; Category:Citation templates; Category:Citation templates -- that do not lead to "automatic" deletions. 4 If you really cared about this topic and wanted to help improve the article you have the choice to start a DISCUSSION at at least three places, an article's talk page, at the article creator's talk page, and at the relevant Wiki-Project's talk page, see WP:TALKJUDAISM, to see what others truly interested in this subject have to say and how they think about this subject. 5 Always have in mind the wise suggestions of both Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Especially if you already know it is a sensitive topic with some editors, you don't brush them aside as you are now doing as if you know better, but instead try to approach this in the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus on the creative level of creating the article and not on the side of condescendingly reading the "riot act" to others who know and can apply WP rules and policies as well as you can. 6 Then there is another viable approach that I strongly favor, and that is if an article cannot stand on its own then there should be ways found to save the legitimate information it holds. That is easily done by a "Merge and Redirect" to a place where this topic fits in, in this case it would be contributing to an important American Torah Judaism and Haredi Judaism institution in New Jersey the Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic that this article's subject was notable for founding. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. Your argument 1 is patently false. There is neither an implied requirement nor a presumption that someone be an expert on an article to edit. In fact this is stated right on the WP Intro Page, in WP:BOLD, etc. In essence, nobody WP:OWNS any particular article. Arguments 2, 3, and 5 build further upon the WP:OWNERSHIP concept you are trying to push, attempt to discredit people who would apply WP policies, and basically plead the "just give it more time" position. Argument 4 tries to shift the burden away from those who wrote the article from the responsibility of documenting it and to instead cast any skeptics as mean-spirited editors who don't care. I'll not have it and here's why. Invariably, these articles have no WP:RS because there is no WP:RS out there to be had. To "just give it more time" is to stall. Take the Berkowitz article again as an example. It still has no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, despite the fact that I raised this issue last May and even took it to AfD! This is predictably when the pleading starts regarding how regular policies shouldn't apply in this case. The AfD archive is full of instances like this. I'm afraid what this boils down to is no WP:RS, no article. I think again that our dear colleague David Eppstein summed this point up well in the Berkowitz AfD and that his observation is applicable here, as well: "I trust IZAK that this is an important person within his community. But the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not importance, but notability: can his significance be verifiably documented through reliably published third-party sources? The sourcing in this article is very poor...I am left only with the word of our subject-expert editors that he is important, and while I believe them I don't think that should be sufficient grounds for inclusion." While I agree in general with your point number 6, it seems that in this particular case, the notability of even the redirect article is being questioned. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        Agri, just because someone opposes your POV does not mean that they "own" an article that's the subject of any AfD. If that would be the case, then WP would not advise nominators to contact creators of articles and at WP-Project notifications to give them the chance of responding to any proposed AfD, so to accuse editors who see an article beyond the skeletal "policy" dragons you insist on invoking, while attempting to tar intelligent and serious opposition to your deletionist behavior on whatever grounds, is rather poor form on your part. In addition, you only have yourself to blame for deepening opposition to your POV when you deliberately inflamed this discussion by referring to other AfDs that you lost, that makes you seem like a sore loser by globalizing this AfD rather than acting reasonably, staying focused, and as is any user's right simply vote yea or nay and be done with it without "citing" this and that old gripe or belly-aching that you are not getting your way because you just know how to apply policies better than the users you are disagreeing with your POV. Policies are important, but WP is first and foremost about an imperfect and difficult ART of CREATING, WRITING, EDITING and IMPROVING articles, and here you have an example where editors are willing to put in the effort to do that and are in the process, yet you insist on criticizing them. By all means every good and busy user comes across articles worthy of deletion, and I have done that many times by commencing many an AfD, but to take on a deletionistic way of life, living only in the realm of WP policies and defend that with inflammatory arguments sounds like WP:LAWYERING gone awry and does not improve WP. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources that describe the subject nontrivially and that provide some hint of the subject's significance appear. The sources already present in the article are unconvincing (two of them don't even mention the subject). As for the "He founded a notable yeshiva" argument: (1) notability is not inherited; (2) his involvement with the yeshiva seems to have been quite brief; and (3) the article on the yeshiva in question makes no case for its notability, and looks like a ((db-org)) candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the unreliable sources referenced in the article do all mention the subject in passing—it's just that neither our article nor the sources can decide whether his name is Wiesenfeld or Weisenfeld. If we can't even establish his name then we have little hope of establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that argument twice now. Transliteration is always tricky business and depending on the particular writer's preferences and style, different words when transliterated can come out different. This is especially true with many Jewish surnames who origins are not necessarily English but were Anglicized that a clear way of spelling them is not universally agreed upon. I hope this does not hamper our efforts in attempting to provide information. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Question for David Eppstein: Not sure what your "expertise" or "knowledge" is about yeshivas in general, but could you please tell us here what you would consider criteria that make any established yeshiva notable? On your own user page you state that: "Much of my Wikipedia editing is on mathematics articles, but I've also edited articles on computer science, academic biography, the arts, and California geography" -- so what does that have to do with yeshivas and rosh yeshivas (the people who found, teach in, and lead yeshivas)? Remember, yeshivas are quiet places with quiet students and quiet rabbis who teach there, none of them seek fame and glory and few get noticed by the media, because they are places where Torah, Talmud, Rabbinic literature are studied in depth and they are the intellectual and scholarly centers of Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism. So what kind of "fame" and "notability" are needed if one can find a few good references online to them and one can cite facts and statistics about the numbers of students in them and something about faculty members. For some notable phenomena, verified existence is enough, and certainly if there are more raw facts and data that are related to it. Please clarify, and not just spout WP this and that, because anyone can do that. Please show that you have sensitivity and knowledge about the subject, otherwise it just looks like you are wielding, or making threats to wield, a proverbial hatchet. Do you want WP to have more information about the yeshiva world and its people -- and nurture it as any growing subject on WP requires -- or do you want to cut it all out? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no experience with yeshivas; I am not even Jewish. My criteria are exactly the same as for a church or small business or private school: it must pass WP:ORG by being covered nontrivially in multiple reliable non-local independent sources (not necessarily online, but publicly available). It's admirable for them to wish to lead a quiet secluded life, but if that causes them to not be well-attested in reliable sources then that's incompatible with having an article here — admirability is very far from the same thing as notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry to intrude here too, but I must point out that this is exclusively an issue of policy, i.e. of reliable sources that demonstrate notability. David's degree of "expertise" or "knowledge" about yeshivas is irrelevant and I don't think we should allow the debate to be cast in these terms, i.e. where a professed expert believes their opinion should be allowed to overrule a WP policy. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      - I find it interesting also that IZAK demanded my qualifications after going out of his way to reassure the article creator that no qualifications were needed. It creates the appearance of a double standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This is behavior that is characteristic of Boosterism articles. Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        To David Eppstein: The above editor tends to be nervous and sells himself short even though he has lots of experience. I was encouraging him to WP:BEBOLD and I was not contradicting myself because I agree with him that it's an important subject. IZAK (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To Agricola44: Would you like to comment in the same way on a series of articles I would propose for deletion from other religions? For example, how much better are these bare stubs: Mohamed El Salamouny; Ilgar Ibrahimoglu; Salim al-Shaikhi? (Just three random examples from Islam, there are thousands more like this.) Let me know when we can start -- by the way, it goes against all my WP instincts because I never get involved in subjects that I generally do not edit in, but you seem to have no problem with that, so let's try it and see what Islam editors who are experts in that field have to say, and see if you accuse them of "boosterism" whatever that is, because you are now violating WP:AGF, and how they would react to it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        What reason do you have for thinking that any editor commenting here would treat a Muslim subject any differently? Based on the sources currently in the articles then all of the articles that you identify would be candidates for deletion, but, as they haven't been nominated, I haven't checked whether I can find better sources for them. Sorry, Izak, but it's you who are failing to assume good faith, as the proof your boosterism (and please don't pretend that you don't know what the word means) is found in your contention that a couple of mentions in postings on Internet forums are evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I regularly (actually daily) check AfD and comment – my edit history is crystal-clear on this point. The Islam-related articles you're referring to IZAK have not come up to AfD, so I've never looked at them. However, I assure you I would apply the same policy-based assessments to them. I agree with Phil that it is you that is edging toward bad-faith here with such backhanded accusations. Be that as it may, let me try to convince you that I have, in fact, applied these same principles to other articles I would classify as boosters of other socio-ethnoreligious groups by inviting you to look through my contributions. Of interest to you might be, for example, this one, which was particularly acrimonious (in my opinion). Nevertheless, in the end, it was deleted for solid policy reasons as partially argued by me. Again, I assure you that I'm not treating your group any differently, despite what you very clearly perceive. I trust this will now get the commenters here past any questions about my suspected motivations. Very respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep* I see no reason why this article can't be improved to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. A little research can do a lot of good! I encourage the community to step up and do some legwork before an article gets the N4D tag. --yonkeltron (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject was the founder of a major yeshiva in the U.S. as well as the Rosh Mesivta (head) of a well-known rabbinical college. This satisfies WP:Notability (academics) Criteria #4. I added some references and will try to find Rabbi Wiesenfeld mentioned in a book in my local Jewish library shortly. To David Eppstein: While verifiability is a bedrock of Wikipedia, you are simply not going to find any of the major yeshivas in the U.S., Israel, or anywhere else covered at length in local media, unless a scandal is associated with them. In the religious Jewish world, however, these yeshivas represent the pinnacle of the ideal of Torah study and their rosh yeshivas (deans) are widely respected and quoted in classes, tapes, and books. I think that the fact that Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic is adequately sourced as being one of the foremost yeshiva gedolahs in the country is proof enough that its founding rosh yeshiva is important. Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The new English-language sources certainly help to support the notability of the yeshiva, but have no significant coverage of Wiesenfeld. I don't read Hebrew so I can't evaluate the other source - could someone give us an indication of how much coverage there is in the Hebrew source of Wiesenfeld himself? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not true that coverage is lacking for yeshivas and their staff. What is true is that notable ones are covered and non-notable ones are not. Check some other Wikipedia articles on them if you don't believe me. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to his school. Being Dean of anything is insufficient for notability. No independent secondary sources analyze to subject. Also, was only Dean for two years and was sick during that time, so his impact falls under WP:1E. Abductive (reasoning) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abductive: "Delete" and/or "Redirect" together, cannot be done at the same time, what you would mean to say is "Merge and Redirect" which can be done, and that may yet be the best solution. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the subject may not be important to the majority of the public, but is certainly of note in a large and stable subgroup of the population, and is likely to remain a person of historical note in the future. Whether or not the article is currently of sterling quality is a completely separate argument. Gzuckier (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the context, he started a school. Notability otherwise not established (other than being related or acquianted to some important people). JFW | T@lk 02:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes a more than credible claim of notability and provides sources to back that up. The subject of leaders of such yeshivas is one that is generally poorly covered and Rabbi Wiesenfeld's era is one that has even more spotty coverage available in sources that would be more readily available through archival media accessible online. Given the scope of his accomplishments and the backing available to support that, retention is adequately justified. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove that they are poorly covered. And if something is "poorly covered", is it not the case that it is not WP:Verifiable and/or WP:Notable? What is to stop people from creating pages on any subject they feel like, and claiming that the whole field is "poorly covered"? Take for example, Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies. It has 514 Google News Hits. Or how about Yeshiva Torah Vodaath? It has 159 Google News hits, many from the New York Times How is this consistent with "poorly covered"? Abductive (reasoning) 05:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Abductive: To allege: "What is to stop people from creating pages on any subject they feel like, and claiming that the whole field is "poorly covered"?" is utter nonsense, and as a Wikipedian you should know the answer by now, and that is that WP has long-standing expert editors in any field, and they will pick up very quickly on things like that and reject them. Thus, as an example, expert editors in mathematics will very quickly pick up on any math WP:NONSENSE and they will know a math WP:HOAX when they see one. But, it is quite another matter when a significant number of WP editors, with a proven track record in their field of knowledge support an article because WP is all about its editors' contributions building it up. Don't forget, WP also relies on the power of veteran editors and experts, based on their editorial contributions, while new editors need to prove themselves. That is why many pages are protected or semi-protected from new editors until they can prove themselves. Surprising you don't factor this in. Then your examples are also bad because (a) the Conservative movement has very few schools, like Ziegler, and when it has them it launches a lot of PR about them, unlike similar Orthodox and Haredi schools that do not invest in PR and stay below the radar. And (b) Torah Vodaath is about 90 years old, one of the oldest Orthodox yeshivas, so obviously there is more about them online, then an institution that was founded about 25 years ago and has relatively less info about it online and in print, but it has nevertheless gained notability and importance worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia like WP. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let me be more explicit: perhaps some here are concerned that if one school or dean is deleted, open season will be declared on all the other articles. But there are many schools and deans who are undoubtedly notable, and I will defend those articles just as strongly as I argue to delete or redirect this one. Abductive (reasoning) 20:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with the idea of strictly enforcing notability or sources, when there is a significant interest in the subject of an article. Ezra Wax (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, WP:IAR. Abductive (reasoning) 05:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is special pleading and it has no place here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - David, unfortunately, you are lumping any "Keep" vote here as "special pleading" when there are a variety of different reasons being given both pro and con. No one is "pleading" for anything, since no one is a "beggar" here. What we are trying to do is help WP grow. This is for WP's benefit, not for any "pleaders" so please stop using that pejorative because you've said it more than once and it's been noted. If you didn't like what Ezra had to say, ask for better reasons based on WP policies, as that request is often made in AfDs, but please sound less judgmental. In this AfD you have chosen to be a participating user with a POV in an AfD that makes you an "involved admin" at most and you are not and cannot be the determining, closing admin or final "judge" of what is transpiring or being said by all parties in this AfD. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your response makes no sense. How can I be lumping together different keep arguments when I have only attached this label to a single argument? Perhaps others deserve it but I haven't said so in this AfD. In any case, you should go read the bluelink on special pleading because your response makes it clear that you don't understand what it is — it is a specific logical fallacy, not just some intuitive combination of the English words "soecial" and "pleading".: it is arguing as Ezra does that for some inadequately explained reason we should throw away our standards for this one case. And it is exactly what Ezra's argument consists of. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't accurately state my reason. I do not agree with the standard of notability commonly used. Wikipedia is not paper. The more articles the better. There have been too many articles that were interesting that have been deleted for the stupid reason that the subject is not notable enough. Who cares? There is plenty of room to have articles on everything. If I want to know about something that is not notable, I should be able to find it out. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems to me that many participants in this discussion don't know what a rosh yeshiva is. If I said to you that so-and-so is the dean of Harvard or Yale, you would agree that he is an important academic. The same is true for roshei yeshiva (deans) of Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath, and Lakewood Yeshiva, among many others. A rosh yeshiva is at the pinnacle of the Torah world, teaching others and developing new Torah ideas on a regular basis. In contrast, the rabbi of a synagogue has left the intellectually fertile environment of the yeshiva and must rely on roshei yeshiva and poskim (halachic authorities, who are often roshei yeshiva) to answer the needs of his congregation. As IZAK has pointed out, the editors who know something about these subjects should be relied upon for their knowledge. And if Wikipedia rules do not account for Orthodox Jewish academics who are not widely covered in the press, then the rules should be amended to reflect that. It is true that some non-notable yeshivas and kollels have slipped through the AfD process and retained their own pages, but any Orthodox Jew can tell you off the top of his head which yeshivas and kollels are notable.
- Regarding Rabbi Wiesenfeld's rather short tenure, I would like to note that before this, he was a rosh mesivta (head) of a rabbinic academy. The Hebrew reference cites this affiliation, which is also considered important in the yeshiva world. I am still looking for references in offline sources.
- By the way, Jewish newspapers traditionally print biographies of major Jewish leaders on a significant yahrtzeit (anniversary of death). If you could all just hold on until this coming September, that will be the 30th yahrtzeit of Rabbi Wiesenfeld, and an article is sure to appear. Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the yeshiva's page. If all we have to say about him is that he was R"Y and was related to some people, I think this can be done on the yeshiva page. When more info comes to light (e.g., seforim he has written, etc.), we can consider breaking out a new entry. Just my 2 cents. —Dfass (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Yoavd (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The choice for the closing admin will essentially boil-down to whether policy should be enforced or not. On the one hand, there are the proponents who favor this article despite lack of references. From the the naked boosterism of Ezra Wax ("I don't agree with the idea of strictly enforcing notability or sources") to the WP:CRYSTAL of Yoninah ("If you could all just hold on until this coming September"), to the more subtle approach by IZAK, the proponents continue to plead instead of just simply adding proper sources. I take that as pretty solid evidence that there are none to really be found. On the other hand, the skeptics of this article (myself included) are arguing policy, that being that any article that doesn't adhere to sourcing requirements has got to go. The larger problem here relates to Wikipedia's reputation to the outside world as a legitimate encyclopedia. By many accounts, we're not doing that well. For example, to quote from the abstract of Luyt and Tan's paper (JASIST 61(4) 715-722, 2010) "This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations...The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used". There are untold numerous articles on WP that are nothing more than pages of vanity, promotion, fandom, or boosterism. If our mission truly is to offer an encyclopedia, then we absolutely must follow a strict WP:RS policy of documentation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Agri, you persist in wrongfully globalizing this AfD, almost to the point of contravening WP:NOTBATTLEFIELD with your wild accusations, and making this article into the literal sacrificial lamb of larger issues that have NOTHING to do with the value and veracity of this article to WP and by extension to a global public. I resent your lumping everyone who is voting "Keep" into one bunch, I can't recall such poor treatment of an entire group in a long time. I can safely speak for myself, so please do not speak for me. In my professional opinion as a WP editor, I affirm this article's value. I have just now participated in another AfD voting to delete because it was a phony article, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob R Kon, you weren't there, pity. You are also not doing a service by discrediting the input of quite a few expert editors in this subject, based on both WP policies and logic and insight into this subject, who are not, as you allege, "contravening" or "causing" the complaints of the outside references you quote. WP does NOT answer to outside critics, but it DOES have it's own creative rhythms and methods of creating, nurturing, editing and improving articles that often takes more time in some case, as per Meta:Inclusionism, as with almost all stubs and subjects from tough to penetrate fields. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given by Phil Bridger (in his !vote and answers to keep arguments). I'd also be ok with merging or redirecting to Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not estabilshed despite the special pleading. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 25 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 List of living supercentenarians#Unverified living supercentenarians. The consensus is that the subject is not notable, (either because she fails WP:GNG and is not inherently notable, or she fails WP:BLP1E. However, no reason is presented why a redirect wouldn't be sensible. I'll leave it to someone to add Dursun to the appropriate place on List of living supercentenarians, and then we'll need to amend the redirect if an when she dies. Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saro Dursun[edit]

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

No evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources as required by WP:N. Her alleged notability here seem to be (to my understanding at least) that she might be the oldest person in Sweden, but maybe not because her age is in doubt, and I don't really see that as meeting anything in WP:BIO. Canadian Paul 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being the oldest living person in Sweden is a credible claim to notability, if it's true. The only source that the article provides doesn't list her by name. However, I've found one source that does here. One source is not enough for the GNG, even if it's reliable (and I have my doubts). And this is a BLP so we need to take extra care. Because there is a source, I'll go with redirect to List of living supercentenarians#Unverified living supercentenarians rather than delete.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has four sentences. The first is "Saro Dursun (born June 1, 1899) is probably currently the oldest living supercentenarian in Sweden." Any article about a living person whose lede topic sentence starts out telling the reader that the person is probably something, without even citing a source for this non-fact, fails good faith deletion analysis. The second sentence tells the reader she was born in Turkey. Again, no source offered. It's not derogatory, but it's also not particularly interesting about someone who's probably the oldest person someplace else. The last two sentences aren't even primarily about the subject of the article. "Astrid Zachrison was the earlier oldest known person in Sweden but died on 15 May 2008. Dursun's birth date, however, is in doubt." I can't read Swedish, but even if the footnoted source says everything in the these last two sentences, so what? Outside of a hobbyist's interest in longevevity "record-holders", what on earth is encyclopedic about any of this? I oppose a redirect for someone who might (or might not) be the oldest person in a single European country. I wouldn't be moved to DELREV if this AfD resulted in a redirect, but I fear that solution would be mostly to assuage the feelings of the tenders of the longevity WP:WALLEDGARDEN rather than for any encyclopedic reason. David in DC (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Swedish language article is very slightly more informative, giving where she moved to from Turkey and the 'fact' that she might be the oldest Turkish-born person alive as well as the oldest in Sweden. There are two different references cited there; as might be expected, both are in Swedish. Peridon (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. Single foreign source is not significant coverage, nor multiple independent reliable sources; nor does article assert notability, per David. Would be proddable except for objection of article creator. Another one that was not tagged to WP:WOP and that Ryoung122 doesn't care to defend either. Good find by CP. JJB 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep The two Google news results that appear, seem notable. I ran them through Google translator. [1] and reading the summaries, they are about this person, and how old they are. Dream Focus 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, all sources are local and about other people, Dursun is mentioned insignificantly in passing, reliability is not settled, and nothing establishes notability. Article's source expressen.se about Zachrison doesn't mention Dursun. Marshall's source hd.se is 8 sentences about Mikaelsson with 1 passing Dursun ref. Google's 2 sources sydostran.se and svt.se are 16 and 6 sentences, about Sokjer-Petersen and Mikaelsson, each with 1 passing Dursun ref. When I've been on the other side of AFDs I could never pass GNG with that little. JJB 14:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^yak 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of living supercentenarians. A brief mention there is sufficient. The only notable thing about this person is their age (WP:BLP1E). It would not be possible to write anything more than a permastub about how this person is very old. SnottyWong ^yak 14:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Snottywong is completely right, classic example of BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as suggest above. No Dream Focus, bare mention in a couple of articles does not "seem notable" (that would require "significant coverage"), it rather seems to be either a blatant misrepresentation of the extent of the sources or a blatant misrepresentation of notability guidelines. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes this article any different than the Astrid Zachrison one? I fail to see the difference(s). The Saro Dursun article is about a person who is believed to be Sweden's currently oldest living person. The fact that her claimed age is disputed IMO doesn't mean she's not notable. Just see the Sahan Dosova article for example. Hey Mid (contribs) 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Heymid, thanks for your work on this, but Dursun got caught in the crosshairs of a WikiProject attempt to define WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes and consistent notability and sourceability criteria. It appears project commenters agree that there is no broad "inherent notability" rule saying that all oldest-in-country claimants are automatically notable; WP:GNG applies (also BLP1E). Zachrison's article has six .se linked articles, which I assume are about the article's subject rather than someone else, not counting the unlinked and longevity-based sources. Since they are all local, I'd still argue that the criteria indicate merging Zachrison to a countryfied list (not outright deletion), but, judging from the high-chaos AFD of Jan Goossenaerts, this is not a consensus view yet. However, I believe there is a consensus established at the project link for deleting an article like Dursun, GWR-unverified, with only 3 trivial local mentions. I grant that sourcing may change. See also my link above for Ryoung122's view some years back. JJB 21:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think I should realize that just because an article is already at another Wikipedia project doesn't mean it meets the notability requirements for articles at the English Wikipedia. Hey Mid (contribs) 21:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply*Being the oldest anything isn't really enough. WP:BLP1E justifies a redirect in some longevity cases, but not a freestanding article. Also, the oldness has to be found in reliable sources. In any event, "believed to be the oldest" something is not inherently notable. I speak no Swedish, but I've looked at the Zachrison page and I agree with you. It looks as deletable as this one. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counsels that we shouldn't keep this bad article just because there's a similar bad article. There are a lot of similar articles. David in DC (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the status of being oldest in the country, and the last left from another century seems sufficient to me, given the multiple coverage in independent sources. With this in mind it's not a clear-cut BLP1E case to me. I fail to understand the complaining about reliable sources as such, since there is a birth date from the official population register. The uncertainty of the date is related to her being an immigrant born in a country (the Ottoman Empire) which at that time didn't have population records up to the standards of some other countries, and therefore not an argument against notability. Tomas e (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point - the date recorded in Sweden for her isn't reliable - it is presumably given by her (or a parent, depending on circumstances) when she arrived in Sweden. It's as reliable as a personal blog or a Hollywood agent. There's not even info given on when this move occurred. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is Sahan Dosova any different, then? If an unconfirmed birth date is a reason to delete an article, I can point out that any person that looks like a supercentenarian can claim they are 130 years old. What makes that article any different than the Saro Dursun one? Hey Mid (contribs) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't. Needs tagging if it's as bad. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much better, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... At least there's a mention of her being 47 in a census. Females tend to add a couple of years in their teens, and from 75 onwards too. Around 47, they tend to subtract.... Peridon (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your own WP:OR belong here but not a birth date from the population register. Aren't you being slightly ridiculous. Tomas e (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tomas e, Peridon is correct in precluding arguments from OTHERSTUFF. I add that Dosova has two reliable sources, which is barrel-scraping and for me would move the article (sourceable content only) to a minibio similar to Zachrison above. I believe this is consistent with WP:WOP#Notability and sourcing guidance, but some editors have refused to either accept or edit the guidance. Dursun's article today still fails GNG and WOP guidance in that significant coverage in independent reliable sources has not been proven, so it's still a delete, or a redirect if rescue succeeds. JJB 17:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smart children[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY - none of the references provided are about the organization Smart Children, and there is no notabiity claim made. (Technically, this should have been taken care of through the speedy delete, but the speedy was declined on the basis that the article had some references.) Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep N, RS, V --Anna O'Leary (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (well, question): What RS are you pointing to that pertains to the organization that the article is about? The article puts forth no sources on the organization at all, so if you have sources that establish the notability of this organization, I suggest you add them to the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I reviewed the article, and of all the references listed (based on the descriptions given), zero are about the organization (no mention even in passing). I reviewed the link to the organization website where all of this information was lifted from (not quite a copy-vio, but a rewording of what was there - references are identical as well). The author has defended this on the talk page by stating this is the information the organization bases itself on. That's interesting, but doesn't establish notability for the article in question. Turlo Lomon (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like an essay but also appears to be promoting something called "Smart Children". It took some digging to find out what "Smart Children" is (company? organization? charity?); it turns out to be a couple of people who put on workshops claiming to make children smarter. No coverage found of them or their workshops. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commercial puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 18 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 Fresno Unified School District. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Middle School (California)[edit]

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

Decently-sourced article, but it's a primary school with no reliable sources to indicate a rationale for encyclopedic merit. I propose this be merged/redirected to Fresno Unified School District. (in fact, I've tried doing so and it was reverted, hence the Article for Discussion/Deletion) tedder (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect Normally, we keep and improve all articles about high schools and secondary schools that give completion diplomas. Normally, we delete (merging and redirecting their useful content) articles about elementary schools and middle schools, unless there is something truly distinctive about the school, as compared to similar schools. See WP:HIGHSCHOOL for guidance. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)and midle schools[reply]
Merge and redirect to school district article (USA), or locality (other areas) as per standard procedure for primary and middle schools. --Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. I edited the article to address Tedder's concerns. The school is documented as being a unique school in the State of California.BrianRiley (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article still does not clearly demonstrate why it is particularly notable. Peripheral notabilities are not transferable, and the article contains at least 50% irrelevant material for any Wikipedia school page. While those alone are not reasons for deletion, it will demonstrate the amount of material left for merging. With all due respect, I would strongly suggest that you now take a moment to read up on our general guidelines for using edit summaries (which make debates like this a lot easier), article creation, then everything in WP:WPSCH and WP:SCH/AG. Kudpung (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung: Please read the section about the special state law that was passed specifically for Cooper in order for a special after-school program to be created. The article referenced clearly states that the school is unique. This reason alone is enough to provide sufficient notability to meet Wikipedia standards. BrianRiley (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you say Brian;) According to my dictionary unique ≠ notable. Let's now see how the debate concludes. Kudpung (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was following up on Cullen328's comment above ("unless there is something truly distinctive about the school, as compared to similar schools"). Surely having a state law written specifically for Cooper--a state law that specifically mentions Cooper Middle School in the text of the law that the purpose of the law is to set up a special program specifically at Cooper Middle School--surely that makes Cooper "truly distinctive" and notable. So far no one in this discussion has cited a specific sentence in a Wikipedia policy BrianRiley (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect: To appropriate district/area article. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly notable. The school does seem to have gotten more than the usual amount of news coverage, primarily from the Fresno Bee [2], which is regional and a Reliable Source. It would help if more of the article's references were linked to an online version (so that people can evaluate the coverage) instead of merely listed. The "special state law" [3] does not appear to be any big deal; it merely granted the school a waiver to allow for a longer school day. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By 'significant' newspaper coverage is meant mainstream newspaers such as the Washington Post or the New York Times, or at least coverage in several statewide daily newspapers. Perhaps several full length articles in the Bee may count towards notability. As per MelanieN, the 'special law' is no big deal.Kudpung (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ; it is not necessary that every Wikipedia subject be covered by the New York Times. Mainstream regional papers like the Fresno Bee (which covers the entire San Joaquin valley, an area larger than many states) are fully accepted here as Reliable Sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (local interests). -MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Melanie, unfortunately it is not. What you are quoting is not policy. It's not a guide line, it's not even a Wikipedia essay. It's a proposal under construction that has no consensus whatsoever. Nevertheless, if you are going to cite Wikipedia, please be sure to refer accurately to the context. The page states:

...they must meet varying guidelines pertaining to in-depth, on-going, non-trivial coverage.

and

In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself.

None of the press articles about the school fulfills any of these requirements. Kudpung (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "No, Melanie, it is not"... what "it" is that? Are you saying the Fresno Bee is not a reliable source, that regional papers don't count? Because that's what I was talking about. I was just challenging your implication that a subject has to be covered by the Times or the Post to rate a Wikipedia article. In fact there are many, many reliable sources out there meeting the requirement that they be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (I'm quoting from WP:SOURCES, which IS policy.) In your answer you seem to have shifted your focus to talk about the depth of the coverage. That's not what I was arguing. It's perfectly valid to debate how substantive (or not) any given coverage is, and I have admitted that if this school qualifies, it qualifies barely (that's why I said "weak" keep). But if that's your issue with this article, don't confuse us by attacking the sources when you mean to talk about the extent of the coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I don't think anyone familiar with the Fresno Bee doubts that it a reliable source. The issue here is whether the specific references now in the article or available online establish notability of this topic. So far, I have seen no convincing evidence that they do, and I've looked. Perhaps you can take an additional look yourself.Cullen328 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In certain cases it would make more sense to merge and roll up to the school district page, but this isn't one of them. There is ample material and third party sources to support an independent article here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 01:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to recent comments MelanieN is correct that the Fresno Bee is a reliable source as the newspaper of record, along with its sister paper, the Sacramento Bee for news of the San Joaquin valley. However, that's beside the point. The issue is the quality of the references provided in the article, or available by a Google search. Reference 1 is an announcement that architects were assigned to design ten schools. That's trivial and is not in-depth treatment of this particular school. References 2 and 3 are directories published by the school district. They are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability. Reference 4 is a primary source about the man the school was named after. He is certainly notable, but schools named after him don't inherit his notability. Reference 5 is a doctoral dissertation about the history of public education in Fresno. There is no indication that this source discusses this particular school in depth, and even if it did, it is a primary source. References 6, 7 and 8 were published long before the school was built and are about the man the school was named after. They are worthless to establish notability of the school itself. References 9, 10, 11 and 12 are about a protest conducted by students at the school, however there is no indication that they discuss the school itself in depth. References 13 and 14 are Fresno Bee articles about state legislation that created an after school program at the school. Was there in-depth discussion of this specific school in these articles, or was this coverage primarily about the legislation authorizing an unusual after-school program? The article makes no claim that these articles discuss the school in depth. Worth noting is that the program in question is now optional rather than required. References 15 and 16 are primary sources about the legislation, mention the school only in passing and therefore do not establish the notability of the school. The fact that the school is mentioned in the legislation is interesting but not notable unless the school itself has been discussed in depth in independent secondary sources. Reference 17 is about healthy school food, with no indication that the school itself is discussed in depth. References 18, 19 and 20 are about an assault on a teacher at the school, with no indication that the school itself was discussed in depth. References 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are about alumni of the school. I have no doubt that these references mention the school in passing, but again, there is no indication that these sources discuss the school itself in depth. If any of these sources do discuss the school in depth, I invite the original author to quote these sources here and in the article. My conclusion is that these sources do not establish notability by Wikipedia standards, and I have been unable to find other sources that do. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cullen. An excellent and very accurate analysis. I would further add that every community has a fire station (probably called a fire department in the USA), that gets mentioned in the local paper for fighting a fire or rescuing cat from up a tree every week. That does not make the fire department in Fresno any more notable than any of the tens of thousands of other fire stations across the US. Most communities have a primary school or a middle school... This, at least, is an accredited Wikipedia essay. Kudpung (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, you seem to be missing the pertinent point which is that the state law was specific to Cooper Middle School. It was not a state law that applied generically to all middle schools. If this doesn't meet the criterion for notability, then nothing will. So now let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree that there were articles written about this, but you are claiming that the articles weren't in depth enough? Who is to judge whether an article is in depth enough? Where is the Wikipedia policy that explains whether an article is in depth enough on a certain topic? Show us what the policy is and tell us exactly how you are applying it to this case. And I think you're not stating the facts correctly. Both the Olvera article and the Matlosz article in the Fresno Bee are centered on Cooper as the school involved and it is not true to say that the articles merely mention Cooper Middle School in passing.BrianRiley (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to judge? We are - that's what this debate is for. Consensus (not a !vote count) will be evaluated and assessed by the closing administrator based on the standard accepted practice(s) as required/suggested in policy and/or guidelines, taking into account the quality of the arguments put forward by the participants. Kudpung (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question. Which Wikipedia policy references criteria to determine whether a news article makes an in depth reference to a topic? In any event, as I said, both the Olvera article and the Matlosz article are centered on Cooper Middle School. So in that case the Wikipedia article on Cooper should be kept and the contention that the school is not notable is a shaky premise. A state law was written specifically for Cooper Middle School--a state law that created a special program specifically for Cooper Middle School. At least two news articles were written which were centered on Cooper. What other criteria do you need? BrianRiley (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question doesn't need answering. There can be a hundred fleeting reports in the local or regional press about an insignificant topic but they won't build notability. The sources required by this encyclopedia are for confirming a notability that already exists. The claim(s) to notability of this school are not of sufficient encyclopedic importance any more than if it were the first school to receive a city hall allocation to buy computers for the classrooms. This sort of gloss is in every local paper, all the time. The Frenso Bee is a respectable paper and a reliable source, it may cover an area the size of England, and address a population the size of New Zealand, but it still makes it also the local paper for Fresno City. Local hacks in every country hang out around the back door of the city hall, the court house, and the hospital to garner any snippet to fill the column space - I know, I used to be one before I became a teacher!--Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by nominator. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I removed the paragraph about the assault. This is not a newspaper or a repository of news articles. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an event that happened at the school. How's it different than a school shooting or other event? It may be undue weight, but it seems encyclopedic. tedder (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's undue weight and does not conform to the strictly neutral kind of article we should have about schools. In one article about an Australian school where twice in its history students went on a mass shoplifting spree in a local mall and and the event got the school closed down for a week, and there were several press and TV reports, the item was removed from the Wikipedia article. We should not confuse notability with notoriety. However, we're off-topic here. Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tedder, if it were a shooting it might be a different matter (with more coverage), but this is a punch and some hairpulling. How is that worthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Drmies (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Riley Five Years 13:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Merge and Redirect = Middle Schools without non-trivial sources do not deserve their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs) 23:00, 24 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) 23:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bikramjit Singh Sandhar[edit]

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

Not notable, fails guidelines of Wikipedia:POLITICIAN, never elected to government. Prodded in Sept 2010, which was contested. PK T(alk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is too minor and too local for an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. DigitalC (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 18 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. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Simpson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No assertion of notability; unreferenced; POVish in tone. No improvement since 2005 AfD, which was borderline, references still not forthcoming. Just... no. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 21:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertion of notability or sources provided. Borock (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability. I searched using a variety of keywords in addition to his admittedly common name, but could find nothing about this particular Henry Simpson except Wikipedia mirrors. Perhaps something could be found in Portugese? Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no assertion of notability, and no evidence from various searches online that he would be notable. The past AfD was over five years ago, before we got stricter. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Per above deletes.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Anthony Bradbury. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotham Hotspur F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable football team, apparently only formed this month, and not in any notable leagues or competitions. Can find no Google hits other than Facebook and this article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly just a hoax. Article creator and an IP are repeatedly removing the AfD notice, after having removed CSD and PROD - I assumed good faith and didn't restore the original CSD, and so we ended up here, but maybe it should be speedied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax, shows an undermanned squad which includes club officials. PK T(alk) 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a Brazilian by the name of Ned Dixon ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7). Even if it's not a hoax it makes no claim of importance. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy deleted this article. there is absolutely no notability claimed, averred or demonstrated. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 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) 00:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Italian colonization of the Americas[edit]

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

POV fork of Thornton expedition by banned sockpuppet. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the material is already covered in other article.Borock (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a hoax --Anna O'Leary (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MAINTAIN We cancel this article ONLY because done by a supposed sockpuppet? We should only look at the article in wikipedia, and not to "brutal hate" against italian achievements....and even note that the article Thornton expedition is a POV fork of this article, a fork done with "antiitalian" brutality by Brutaldeluxe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.140.61 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Thornton expedition, which covers exactly the same material, though more briefly. If kept, it should be renamed "Tentative Tuscan colonisation ..." as there is no indication of involvement by any other Italian state. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material was already in Thornton expedition and edited out as inappropriate, undue weight, etc. That is when the new page was created - the very definition of a POV fork. Little likelihood that the existing namespace will be used as search term, so no sense in keeping it as a redirect, particularly when inaccurate, as it was never a colonization and there was no Italy at the time. All that and it was created by a sock puppet of a banned user. Agricolae (talk) 03:04, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by JamesBWatson. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revit Dazio[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits or GNews of substance and lacking claim of notability. Should be Speedy Deleted, but Csd keeps getting removed by SPA presumed to be sockpuppet. ttonyb (talk) 20:52, 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) 23:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Riaz[edit]

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

No hint of notability, not a single news or review article. Every Google hit is a social networking link or vanity page. —EncMstr (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: there's nothing out there that gives any indication of notability. freshacconci talktalk 13:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing on Yahoo either. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 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 keep. The consensus is that this campaign is notable. However, I don't see why this article couldn't be called Campaign against Highgate Rabbit Farm or something similar but that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highgate Rabbit Farm[edit]

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

A WP:COATRACK for documenting a campaign of criminal activity. There is almost no information about the subject of the article itself, a small business (rabbit breeding) that made the mistake of selling rabbits for experimentation, but plenty about the attacks on it and other attacks by the same groups. ~~The crimes themselves have been reported only in the very local press.~~ Such articles offer little but to publicize the crime and have no encyclopaedic value on the nominal subject. At most, this deserves a line in the ALF and/or SHAC article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regal Rabbits and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consort Kennels for other examples of similar articles, now deleted. Rockpocket 18:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I reviewed the article. The part on history I think should be cleaned up to remove the articles referencing non-HRF problems, but other than that, I am seeing no problems with the article or the sources. It is a centralized location of multiple years of criminal activity, that has been reported on by multiple reliable sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly stated the other examples supplied by the OP are irrelevant to this discussion. There are two points that concern me as well: (1) "crimes themselves have been reported only in the very local press". The BBC article proves otherwise, but the other sources comply with WP:RS, so I am not having a problem with them. (2) "that made the mistake of selling rabbits for experimentation" - I am questioning a possible WP:COI on this statement. This definitely indicates that the OP is against this farm. Is there an alternate reason why this is being proposed for deletion? My understanding of policty is that this article meets notability requirements. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - striking comment. I should assume good faith. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the psychoanalysis, but don't give up your day job, Turlo. To address your "concerns" 1) The BBC news report was not cited when I wrote the listing. 2) If anything I'm sympathetic to the farm - I'm certainly not against it and I have no idea why anyone would think I am. I do have a problem with with using an article about one thing to write about something else. In this case, the article is clearly about the campaign to Close Highgate Rabbit Farm. If co-ordinated criminal activity is notable (and I don't think a number of independent, trivial news reports make it so, per WP:NOTNEWS), then it should be under an article about the co-ordinated activity, not about the subject of that activity. Rockpocket 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done a Google search yourself and found the BBC articles. Per WP:BURDEN we're supposed to help look for sources ourselves, even when we object to material. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I clicked the search for sources links above and didn't spot it. This BBC "article" is a red herring. It does not provide significant coverage of the farm and does not provide significant coverage of a AR campaign against the farm. Its a local news report about an arson attack on a van. [4]. Rockpocket 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another BBC News article about a raid on the farm. [5] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the sentence about the "very local press". Now if only we had an article about the campaign against the farm that these reports would be well suited for. Rockpocket 00:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm concerned about the speed with which Rockpocket nominated this. It was created by ThompsonFest at 17:04 January 16. Rockpocket prodded it an hour later. [6] I removed the prod because Rockpocket had successfully prodded an earlier version of it in 2008, so I asked him to let it develop for a bit, then take it to AfD if it wasn't working out. I started looking for sources, and he added the AfD tag 30 minutes later. [7] What's the rush? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no rush, SV. The reason I didn't wait is because no amount of additional writing about the attacks against the farm address the problem that this is coat-rack. We know almost nothing about the farm itself, because it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and therefore fails WP:N. Rockpocket 21:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the campaign against the farm, but the name of the campaign isn't notable (though the campaign itself is borderline notable), which I assume is why ThompsonFest chose the name of the farm for the title. It would have made more sense to wait a couple of weeks to see if more secondary sources could be found. This is one of a number of campaigns by a section of the anti-vivisection movement in the UK, and they've been highly notable, causing facilities to close, new legislation to be introduced, and many people to be jailed. What you are doing is going through these articles, one by one, and having them deleted. Perhaps you could consider how to retain them instead and make them encyclopedic, either as stand-alone pieces or within one article that discusses them all. But nominating for AfD an hour after creation doesn't allow time for that research. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So it is a coat-rack then: Articles about one thing shouldn't mostly focus on another thing. If "this is an article about the campaign against the farm" Then why isn't it called Campaign against Highgate Rabbit Farm? If the campaign is borderline notable, make the claim for that, not the farm. Last time I checked our policies, we wrote articles about the subject, not campaigns against the subject. And give the (untrue) allegations of a deletion campaign a rest. Focus on the content, not the contributor please. Rockpocket 23:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem to establish notability. I can not think of a reason in WP policy why the farm should not have an article. Having said that it is clear, to any reasonable reader, that WP's coverage of animal welfare issues is WP:Owned by activists. I am not sure there is the will in any part of the WP community to enforce policies, as was done in the case of Scientologists interfering with articles related to their cause. I don't plan to waste my time getting involved, but WP would have a better reputation if this kind of activism was not allowed or was somehow controlled. Borock (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I'm not seeing any WP redflags regarding the need to delete the article. That said, the article does need more work (as it the case for 99% of all articles on wikipedia). — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More work is always good. But the real problem is that lots of people think that preventing cruelty to animals is more important than having a neutral and informative encyclopedia for humans. And who am I or anyone else to say they are wrong? Borock (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I've seen protectionism and promoting of POV in many places, but there are different WP that cover these issues. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 17:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The activities of the Animal Liberation terrorists have been much publicised. This is a well-researched article on one of their targets. Most of the references are to the local press, but that is probably the only WP:RS available on most of the incidents. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 18 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) 00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polito-islamische Werbung[edit]

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

Neologism Jac16888 ^Talk 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to google translation--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just considering this step after correcting some spellings/typos in the article, but tagged it for translation instead to see what happened... The title only returns one ghit - here. (Another link comes up, but the term doesn't appear to be on the page.) I prodded it as an essay, but this was declined by an IP - possibly the author not logged in. I still think it is an essay. Unreferenced, too. Peridon (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Politico-Islamic advertising, which is what this translates to any case or to Islamic propaganda, which is the sense of Werbung.--Auric (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so would not change the fact that this in an unsourced non-notable neologism, machine translated or not (which you're not supposed to do by the way)--Jac16888 ^Talk 03:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do we have a ((rough translation)) template that implies that it is okay or at least better than nothing?--Auric (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the people who don't bother to do their homework, Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate . In most cases a machine translation is worse than it untranslated, they are often unintelligible, and unlike untranslated articles, they cannot be procedurally nominated for deletion after 2 weeks, instead they sit as they are for months. By using a straight machine translation without even attempting to do any further tidying, you are not helping the project, you're making it worse and making more work for the people who actually try to do it properly--Jac16888 ^Talk 04:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It looks straight-forward, with less of the clutter that usually happens when translating from German. That doesn't mean that I won't work to improve it. It just means that it will take longer than a professional translator. I commented out the original text if you need to refer to it. --Auric (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's an ad for some advertising consultants. And, as Jac16888 said: it an unsourced non-notable neologism. It gets 2 hits on Google: 1 from the article itself, and one from a German tweet blog. My guess? There have been European controversies caused by advertising which some Muslims find offensive - Some discussion here on this slow link.

In spite of the fact this particular article is actually harmful, dangerous and begs for deletion, there is probably an interesting article in the actual topic - for someone who wants to take the time to dig it out of European newspapers and translate it properly. Maybe the Guardian or Times have some coverage in English. The real article would not be titled "Polito-Islamic advertising" (or propaganda) though. It would be something like "Advertising for Muslims living in a secular, western society" or "Advertising in a secular, western society with a significant Muslim demographic".

Aquib (talk) 04:35, 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 keep. There are no longer any arguments for deletion. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khojaly–Gadabay culture[edit]

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

This article appears to be a hoax in that no such term exists. I can find no evidence that the phrase "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" really exists as an archaeological term. A Google search for "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" returns a mere 30 hits - and they are mostly blog-type posts that seem to be reproductions of, or rewordings of, the same news report. Also, almost everything is from 2010. If this were a genuine archaeological term (like Kura-Araxes culture for example) it would appear in specialist publications and there would be sources older than 2010. In short, the phrase "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" appears to have been invented in 2010 and has no archaeological meaning. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the extremist propagandistic nature of the sources that are from the earlier date (2007) - which excludes their use as credible sources. Also note their faulty English: it actually isn't clear what they (those earlier sources) mean by ""Khojaly–Gadabay culture": it could just be "evidence of human culture in the Khojali - Gadabay region". Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the thing may be little known (I did not know of it either until coming to the page), its citations are of reputable sources. I don't think the University of Pennsylvania is promoting a hoax. --Yalens (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What reputable sources are promoting the term? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the words "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" on the cited University of Pennsylvania website. I have emailed Lauren Ristvet about the use of her name and the Naxcivan Archaeological Project as a citation for "Khojaly–Gadabay culture". Nakhchivan, btw, is nowhere near either Khojali or Gadabay. Please tell us why you say there are reputable sources using the phrase, or please withdraw your opinion. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a link to the website of the Naxcivan Archaeological Project. The phrase "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" does not appear ANYWHERE on the website. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. There are two references to scholar sources. The topic is just currently understudied and is a stub as such. --Twilightchill t 20:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling for WP:SNOW is inappropriate: the references are not to scholarly publications. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Currently there is one. Actually there are more reliable sources I missed before: Karabakh.org and Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the subject also made its way into Archaeology Daily. Twilightchill t 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for 'Khojaly–Gadabay', most of what I get is a Google blurb that looks interesting but leads to an account of an alleged massacre and no mention of the cromlechs and dolmens in the blurb. (I say 'alleged' because the accounts are distinctly biased and I have not investigated - nor do I plan to as it is not relevant here.) I hate it when this happens. On the other hand, there is the (claimed to be - and probably is) Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences site http://www.elm.az/en/index.php?id=1439 which, while somewhat polemical, does refer to excavations. The page seems more concerned with a modern political point than in giving the details I want. Lauren Ristvit's profile confirms she has worked in the area, but doesn't mention this 'culture'. Currently I reserve judgement on this article, and may do some more work in this area when less hungry... Peridon (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the link above to the website of Lauren Ristvit's archeological expedition. There is no use of the phrase on any of its many pages, and actually mentions objects found were from the Kura-Araxes culture. It may be that the term "Kura-Araxes" is now disaproved of by Azerbaijan - maybe too much of its cultural remains are in Armenia, or too many Armenians have written books about it, or something trivial like that, and "Khojaly–Gadabay" has been coined to replace it. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This is not a hoax, but neither is it a verified term or valid subject. As far as I can tell, the blogs and newsreleases that the article is based on are more or less propagandistic extrapolations of results achieved by an archaeological expedition that investigated a fascinating area of Azerbaijan. I'd love for someone for Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology to weigh in here and prove me and the nominator wrong. In the meantime, though, I do not believe that the available sources (and I've looked at most everything I could find on the internets) objectively verify the notability of the topic. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per dab below; I should have looked for a target to merge this into. Thanks, Dbachmann. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge into History_of_Azerbaijan#Bronze_to_Iron_Ages, or ideally into a to-be-created Prehistoric Azerbaijan. --dab (𒁳) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how one can merge something that has no sources and which does not exist as a genuine archaeological term? Can you cite a source that uses this term? Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you didn't find any sources? You need to try harder. It's a transliteration issue. Most of this is in Russian. ru:Ходжалы-кедабекская культура. --dab (𒁳) 21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source. A number of questions are raised. Firstly the phrase in the article you cite is "Khojaly-Kedabek culture" - what is the validity of the name of the article being discussed? After all the "Kura-Araxes culture" article is not called "Kur-Aras culture". Secondly, do you know if this Soviet-period term is still valid at all? Thirdly, will you agree that everything in the article's content beyond the first sentence has no valid sources, and the sources actually say something different. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kedabek is the Russianised form of what in this article is spelled Gadabay. The word also can be found with an accented g and with q instead of g. Compare spellings of Gaddafi/Qaḏḏāfī. Transliteration is a minefield... Peridon (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "Araxes" is the classical name for the Aras river. That the Araxes name is not used locally doesn't mean the term "Kura-Araxes culture" should be renamed: the established use is paramount and it is used in that form internationally. So, admitting that the culture being discussed exists in some form, it should be "Khojaly-Kedabek culture" if that is the phrase used in specialist sources. And what we have is one line of content (the Nakhchivan content is clearly wrong since there is no mention of "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" on the excavators' website). The "hoax" seems to be the Nakhchivan connection claim. If that were removed, and the name question was settled, maybe the article should remain as a stub, or merge with something else. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, dab - you do realise the difficulties with "Prehistoric Azerbaijan"? Such an article just isn't going to happen. It is even less likely to happen that "Prehistoric United States of America", or "Prehistoric United Kingdom of Great Britian". Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold and removed the part of the article that identified recent excavations in Nakhchivan with Khojaly–Gadabay culture. The excavators' own website makes no mention of Khojaly–Gadabay culture. It was this unlikely claim from a dubious source that made me think the whole article might be derived from a hoax news report. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology about this disussion. LadyofShalott 23:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

~~Delete~~. The article apparently lacks neutral sources. Moreover, the reference to UPENN is probably misleading (it points out a person at UPENN but has no mention that she would use the term "Khojaly–Gadabay culture" at whatever circumstances). The title itself seems to be more propaganda rather than something directly related to archaeological values. -- Ashot ^(talk) 23:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having been supported with Piotrovskiy references it looks much different now, however would be great to have a reference to make sure it is not obsolete in archaeology. -- Ashot ^(talk) 21:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Different nomenclatures aside, it's obvious this article is about a bona fide archaeological culture. Whether or not the Nakhchivan connection is true is an issue for the talk page. By the way, it's probably a bad idea to try and assess the existence/notability/whatever of articles on archaeology with Google. Even when information about famous and important cultures filters through to the mainstream press they're inevitably very vague on dates and terminology and similar "academic" details (after all they're not really very interesting or important in the grand scheme of things). Searching for a relatively minor prehistoric culture in the ex-Soviet Union, I'm surprised you even got thirty. —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 12:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close this AfD. I have now established that this is a perfectly valid topic, see article talkpage. The merge suggestion stands of course, but that is a purely editorial choice and does not need to be decided on AfD. --dab (𒁳) 13:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go for a Keep as it stands now. Might be an idea to create redirects from the alternative spellings/names. Peridon (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the initiator of this AfD, I'm not sure I can vote, or could now vote against deletion. However, I am pleased that the discussion has led to some sources that do attest to the phrase's existance as an archaeological term, though a very obscure term. So if I could vote, I'd vote Keep, but I can see an argument for Merge given its extreme obscurity and lack of content. Scribblescribblescribble (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can change to Keep - or just say you withdraw the nomination. Happens quite often. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, though not to the target tagged on the article which is essentially a list and thus unsuitable as a target. The subject is clearly obscure and suffers from transliteration issues, probably both between a local language and Russian and between Russian and English. It is not always satisfactory to deal with ancient history according to modern borders and some of those in the Caucasus were only determined in the 20th cnetury, so that I am not convinced of the merits of an Azerbaijan target. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As it stands now, it seems that we're going to have a difficult time procuring relatively accessible sources, much less reliable, sources which speak about this early culture, so that we can develop and expand. Nonetheless, I am somewhat baffled that sources term this prehistoric culture as "Khojaly–Gadabay", when a more appropriate one exists in the form of the Kura-Araxes culture. Perhaps the disapproval of Armenian history and culture in lands Azerbaijan considers its own has simply found its latest manifestation with this article title, as Scribblescribblescribble suggests above.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a culture, studied extensively by Azerbaijani and Soviet archeologists. Most of sources on the subject are probably not online yet. Somebody needs to dig up the archives and make necessary additions. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm late to the party, but here's my 2 cents... I did a lot of reading and research on the early history of the region several years ago, and never came across this term. That doesn't mean it's not legitimate, but it'd have to be fairly obscure. Be wary of local sources; historical scholarship in that region tends toward the nationalistic, so I could believe that this is a term was invented by Azeris to create a separate heritage from that of Armenia (regardless of how little relationship exists between today's ethnic/political boundaries and those of antiquity.) Isomorphic (talk) 02:09, 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 as a poorly sourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Stern[edit]

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

No assertion that he passes WP:MUSIC. Being a member of a notable band is not in itself enough, particularly when he never played a single show or recorded a single album with the band. Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to this, he was kicked out of the band after a couple of days. I suppose one could argue for a redirect to The Ramones as he was technically a former member of the band. However, the article makes no mention of Richie Stern. And considering how much has been written about the Ramones, I would expect somebody with even a whiff of being worth mentioned would have more than the two results in a Google Book search. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 18 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. Reliable secondary sources have since been added to the article. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)[edit]

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

There are no secondary sources for this article. It is a minor Australian party that has received no media or academic coverage. The sources used in the article are either from the party's website or the Australian Electoral Commission. The sole news story is actually about the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. The only scholarly reference is one mention that they have a website. TFD (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. The only third-party references are links to the Australian Electoral Commission website, which are sufficient to confirm that the party exists and that it has run candidates in Australian federal elections, but are not sufficient to confirm that it's notable. Since unsuccessful candidates for national political office are not automatically presumed to be notable unless they have received significant press coverage in their own right (unlike successful candidates for national office, who are automatically presumed to be notable), the same rule should probably apply, mutatis mutandis, to minor political parties. That is, a minor party can be notable if it has received enough media attention to meet the general criteria of WP:N, but an otherwise-non-notable party is not automatically notable merely because it is registered at the national level and has run candidates in national election. Obviously, I'll change my view if someone finds some substantial coverage of the party from national or regional media outlets: but on a quick Google search, I couldn't find any references to the party other than its own website, the AEC, and mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Walton^One 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, change to weak keep per below. 230,000 votes in a national election (in a country with only 22 million people, not all of whom are eligible voters) is fairly substantial. I'm surprised there aren't more reliable secondary sources available, though: one would think that there should be some local media coverage, at least. Walton^One 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should exist but it needs a lot of work OK, that's a bit each way kind of a post, but if it's true, as the unsourced claim says, that it received 200,000 votes at last year's federal election, that's a fair few people who think this party is important. The article reads like a very sloppy advertisement for the party, so needs a lot of attention, and it won't get it from me in the near future. Do we delete because it's a poor article, even if it should exist? HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the claim was very easy to source. St Anselm (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks for providing that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, or half of Wikipedia would disappear! Yes the article needs work, but it most definitely is a Keep. Throughout the world there are political parties that do not achieve office and whose members do not get elected, but that is no reason to say they do not deserve articles in Wikipedia. As pointed out, the party does exist and has even achieved a fair number of votes; its arguments over naming with the Electoral Commission in itself confers notability beyond the mere fact of its existence - how many parties have this in their background? It is a mistake to assess parties on the same notability guidelines that we apply to politicians. Emeraude (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If no sources exist, how do you propose improving the article? TFD (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The AEC would seem to me to be a most valuable source. It certainly confirms existence of the party and numbers of votes gained. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a primary source. You need newspaper articles at least. TFD (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! That is not a primary source. St Anselm (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Primary sources would be those of the party itself and its candidates, and one can find plenty of those. The AEC is, by definition, independent of the party. Anyway, a little determined searching did find this, an article from The Age telling us about funding for parties from the AEC following the last federal election. It tells us that the LDP was one of ten Australian parties to gain funding from taxpayers. As a taxpayer, that's notable to me! Should it be included? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY. There have been a lot of discussion of this type of source. ACT is a primary source for the parties they register and the votes they count. Newspaper reports of vote counts and ACT decisions are secondary sources. I have taken it to the OR noticeboard.[8] TFD (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1.81% of the senate vote means it's not just a silly little party, like, I don't know, the Non-Custodial Parents Party. The LDP received almost three times as many votes as the Democrats. St Anselm (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of Factiva for '("Liberal Democratic Party" or "Liberty and Democracy Party") and (whelan or McAlary)' gives about 30 results. I have started adding some of these as secondary sources for the article. Reubot (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, standard. Timeshift (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. One of the stronger minor parties outside of parliament. Rebecca (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five Years 16:52, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waltlou Mobile Home Park[edit]

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

This trailer park gets pages and pages of Google hits, almost all of them advertising listing for the sale of propane and gas sold at the property. It is also apparently marked on a survey map, but that as such does not make it notable as almost anything can be found in these maps. Normally I am very generous when it comes to geographical features but I can see no evidence that this trailer park is more notable than any other commercial entity that will also be listed on maps such as junk yards, farms or similar structures. I would really need to see evidence that shows that this particular trailer park is especially notable. Otherwise any info should be included to Falmouth Travelbird (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias concerns regarding notability are addressed by third party links, which are legitimate sources and the identical sources used by other mobile home parks presently on Wikipedia, with identical listings to Waltlou. Those links are: MHVillage.com/Waltlou Mobile Home Park, which list "communities" by zip code, and is nationally recognized. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS)-Waltlou Mobile Home Park, which verifies Waltlou as a "populated place", gives specific coordinates, refers only to the community, no other business and is federally recognized. Waltlou Mobile Home Park was also add to the list of unincorporated communities in Stafford County, Virginia, United States, and an additional reference was added to Waltlou Mobile Home Park's page due to this addition.

Historical Tragedy: In addition, a tragic murder/suicide occurred in 2008, and was picked up by local and national coverage, naming Waltlou Mobile Home Park as the neighborhood where the tragic acts occurred. [http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=71387 WUSA News. Wtop News. And there are many more similar reports on the same incident.

Travelbird mentioned that Waltlou Mobile Home Park came up a lot when a google search was run, but more to the point, Waltou Propane Gas & Mobile Home Park came up. Waltlou DOES HAVE a completely SEPARATE business on the outskirts of the neighborhood, and the neighborhood does not run through the gas business or have anything to do with it, other than proximity. Waltlou Propane Gas advertises, therefore it comes up on searches, but it is advertised as Waltlou Propane Gas, and we keep it separate from Waltlou Mobile Home Park. There are instances when both have been used together, but they are handled as separate financially, and run/regarded separate by those in the neighborhood. The question was asked in the 1st paragraph by Travelbird, what makes Waltlou Mobile Home Park different from a junk yard, farm or similar structure? The same thing as any other neighborhood in the community, an unincorporated community, the site of a tragic murder/suicide, registered on GNIS, MHVillage, Wikipedia references, numerous listings in google for rental property available, and we have fulfilled more than other listings for similar mobile homes. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkhad (talk • contribs) 10:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say, "we keep it separate from Waltlou Mobile Home Park", who are the "we" that you refer to? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Falmouth. The sources suggest that Waltlou Mobile Home Park is a neighborhood of Falmouth, and it doesn't seem to be independently notable enough for its own article. Any notable information about the community can be merged to the Falmouth article. I'm not sure if unincorporated mobile home parks should be covered under the consensus that unincorporated communities are notable, but this one is a neighborhood anyway, and neighborhoods are rarely notable enough for their own articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 11:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waltlou Mobile Home Park is a distinct, separate neighborhood which has been in existence since the 1960's, and is recognized in the area. To rebut the merge/redirect and notability questions, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, it has been proven by third party reference that Waltlou should have its own article, like many others identical. As reference, the GNIS listing which is an globally recognized federal entity, which has listed Waltlou as a populated place, with geographic coordinates. Also, Waltlou is listed with MHVillage.com as an established community/neighborhood, like a number of other parks on Wikipedia, and MHVillage.com is a national site recognized by those in the real estate business. Also, Waltlou is listed as an unincorporated community in Stafford, Virginia. Again, view the unincorporated communities from Stafford, Virginia, and compare the similarities with Waltlou and a number of the other communities that are listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkhad (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely no redirect, not even worth a mention in the Falmouth VA article. It's a trailer park with what looks like about 10 or 11 homes, on the outskirts of Fredericksburg VA. It's a "populated place" in the same sense that a small apartment building might be. There's no official policy, though we have a common outcome WP:NPLACE and an essay Wikipedia:Notability (geography) referring to census-designated places identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, rather than the U.S. Geological Survey. For the record, there are 502 places in Stafford County, Virginia, that are on the massive USGS list of populated places. [9]. Mandsford 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, populated places that aren't CDPs or incorporated places have generally been kept in past AfDs. This being a neighborhood and not an unincorporated community, though, it doesn't fall under that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Dough 48 72 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waltlou Mobile Home Park is not, "a trailer park with what looks like about 10 or 11 homes", which the prior critique states. How the user came up with that number is unclear, and incorrect, significantly. The following are Wikipedia articles, or pages of mobile home parks listed in Wikipedia: Evergreen Mobile Home Park, Edmonton, C and M Mobile Home Park, Alabama, Balle Mobile Home Park, Alabama, Brantley Mobile Home Park, Alabama, Forks Mobile Home Park, Washington, Superstition Shadows Mobile Home Park, Arizona, Stein's Rockin R Mobile Home Park, Iowa, These parks and listings are similar, and some identical, and some with less information than Waltlou Mobile Home Park. The other mobile home parks followed Wikipedia guidelines, as did Waltlou Mobile Home Park, and have all dealt with issues of notability, and presently exist. Why Waltlou seems to be judged differently or singled out is not understood. Also, to address issues with "populated place" brought up in the previous critique, Waltlou is not using the term populated place in the same sense as a small apartment building would use it, any more than England Run, Virginia does. England Run is a neighborhood close to Waltlou Mobile Home Park that serves the same purpose, and as notable as Waltlou, in every facet. If you say there is no policy regarding this, and other mobile home park communities and neighborhoods have articles in wikipedia, it seems then that Waltlou Mobile Home Park is for some reason being judged differently. Concerns of notability and relevance have been put forth, and per wikipedia rules and guidelines, those concerns have been answered. There is third party reference by verifiable and acceptable sources, the same as those above. Also, Wikipedia, as a reference tool, should be concerned with fact, and having available as much reference as possible. What Waltlou Mobile Home Park is, is a community/neighborhood, also a populated place and unincorporated place, and fits each of those descriptions. Why the editor(prior opinion) feels that a mobile home park neighborhood or community is unequal or inferior, to a "stick-built" neighborhood or community, or a populated place or unincorporated place, is unclear, and there does not seem to be any real distinction. I would think the more data and information that is accurate that Wikipedia has, the better. I know it is not a matter of space in Wikipedia. Please review the other articles in Wikipedia that were added above, and look at the similarities to Waltlou Mobile Home Park. Accurate, verifiable data has been submitted, and it fits the guidelines, and also seems to be in line with what wikipedia is all about. I would hope that personal bias or discrimination do not play a part in keeping facts out of wikipedia. I do not think a place is subjective, it exist, is used by the population, and fits guidelines. The more information available, the better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkhad (talk • contribs) 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The estimate of 10 or 11 mobile homes may be incorrect, but not significantly so, as this business's own web site says there are 15. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a business rather than a distinct populated place, so should be judged by the standards that we apply to businesses, which I can see no evidence of this article meeting. And, please, don't throw around accusations of prejudice against mobile home dwellers. I live in a bricks-and-mortar house on a street with about three times the number of homes that this park has, and would expect to be held up to ridicule if I was to argue that that street was a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Waltlou Mobile Home Park is identical to the links of other mobile home parks presently in Wikipedia whose links were included in the prior contribution by davidkhad, why then is Waltlou Mobile Home Park being judged different. If no reason is given for that other than deletion for that reason, then what am I to think. Waltlou mobile home park is not trying to be listed as a business, the same as all the other mobile home parks with pages on Wikipedia. If one is going to object to this listing, then please answerer why England Run, Virginia is on Wikipedia, or any of the mobile home parks I listed. There is absolutely no difference. That point has not been broached by any of the editors. I do not understand why one feels Waltlou Mobile Home Park is not worthy of Wikipedia, and those others are. Also, regarding notability, regarding wikipedias rules, that has been addressed. Also, Waltlou mobile home park is not being listed as a business, but a neighborhood. A neighborhood that does business does not exclude it from being in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkhad (talk • contribs) 20:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that this business is trying to present itself as a neighbourhood, but that is a misrepresentation. Nobody (apart from you) commenting above has expressed any opinion about any of those other articles because this discussion is about Waltlou Mobile Home Park, and about only Waltlou Mobile Home Park. If any of those other parks don't meet our inclusion criteria then they can also be nominated for deletion by any editor - the instructions are at WP:AFD. And please don't refer to yourself in the third person, as it makes it look as though you are presenting your comments as coming from different people when they are in fact from the same person. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question above, which you may have missed amongst the other comments, i.e. when you say, "we keep it separate from Waltlou Mobile Home Park", who are the "we" that you refer to? Do you represent Waltou Propane Gas & Mobile Home Park? And I'll add another question: as you say that the filling station is "on the outskirts of the neighborhood", could you explain how a neighbourhood of this size (look at the satellite image and zoom in three clicks to get a proper perspective) can be said to have any "outskirts". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above critique, Waltlou Mobile Home Park is a neighborhood, where people live, and rent their homes, just like any other neighborhood. The reason why I mentioned the other mobile home parks is because that seems to be the status quo. I understand and accept your reasoning that you are only dealing with my article (our article), and not the others. But I think when dealing with this medium, and when I planned my article, I was directly "inspired" to do so from those articles, that being why I pointed them out. I think to ignore them and give the answer that you are dealing with this article, not the others, is ignoring the fact that they are identical or very much like each other. Since there are quite a few, my logic would follow, that if they were constructed the same, then where is the problem? I do not have a problem with the other parks, nor see a reason why they should be removed, regarding the link left by the prior person. The only reason I can think, but concede to possibly others, is that the reason the other mobile home parks, and England Run, Virginia were not mentioned was because there is no problem with them. The criteria for Waltlou Mobile Home Park being in Wikipedia has been met. Also, if I referred to myself in the third person, I am sorry. I do not really understand what the person above is saying in regards to trying to sound like different people, I think you are reading a bit to much into it, and your tone conveys a lot of attitude and anger, which I think is inapropreate in this forum. To answer the above question "who are we", that is clearly the people working at the mobile home park. In regards to a business being there as well, the business has nothing to do with the community. It does not serve the residents, and is finacially separate, separate insurance, even rules that restrict the people in the neighborhood from being around it. In regards to the outskirts, that meaning the edge, not the center. Also, in regards to a couple of comments left by people, please dont display an attitude, it devalues wikipedia, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkhad (talk • contribs) 07:37, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Vladimirovich Poleev[edit]

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

Article on a Russian-born scientist, with some overblown claims ("polymath whose expertise spans a significant number of different areas of knowledge", for example). Web of Science lists 9 articles for "Poleev A*", one of them to someone with initials "AM". Of the 8 left, citation rates are123-45-33-25-13-10-0-0, h-index of 6, total number of citations 249. Last publication dates from 2000. Article also claims that Poleev is editor-in-chief of a scientific journal named Enzymes. From the journal homepage, this appears to be self-published and rather "fringy" looking and it does not appear to be included in any selective database (it also does not appear to have published any article not authored by the editor himself). Article also claims that he authored several books. the external link to Open Library makes clear that these are all self published (in Enzymes). In all, Poleev does not seem to clear the bar of WP:PROF. Earlier PROD removed by article creator, User:Poleev. Crusio (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to be a copy of this. However, as that is a user-contributed article (contributed by the subject himself, in this case), I don't think this is a speedable copyvio. --Crusio (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, particularly in view of WP:COI/WP:AUTO concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page creator, Poleev (talk · contribs), has been indefinitely blocked as a "single purpose self-promotional account", after removing the AfD tag from the article three times and blanking this AfD twice. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if this article is kept, the disambiguation page Poleev needs to be deleted as entirely redundant - it contains only one item, pointing to the Andrej Vladimirovich Poleev article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The journal editor thing comes closest to one of the WP:PROF criteria, but as the nominator argues, his internet journal is not "a major well-established academic journal" as WP:PROF requires. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on evidence above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 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. Mkativerata (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Short Stories[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT. As the title suggests, this article is a set of instructions for writing short stories. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Wikipedia is not a "guide". Delete the article. Novice7 | Talk 16:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Jenks24 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not taking writing advice from someone who says "you understands". Hairhorn (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article has helped me a lot!!! Varmengolem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varmengolem (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can you help me make this article better?User:Kesha495 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesha495 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. If you go back to the site Writing Short Stories, it will be different.Kesha495 talk)

Only vote once, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Deor (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - ManicSpider (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, and comment - if Kesha495 is writing this for a school assignment, they should explain to the teacher why the article was deleted and perhaps consider working on another short story article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all WP:HOWTO voters. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't eHow and per WP:NOTHOWTO Baseball Watcher ^{Lets Chat} 22:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close - The page creator was blocked and then "retired" after two days with Wikipedia.[10] "Make a web of ideas with five big things that are going to happen in your story." and "But I learned how, and now I write level 4 short stories for school." are from ideas-for-short-stories-for-school.html, an odd subpage for the mutual fund management company Eurobank. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:05, 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.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heru Sutadi[edit]

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

Article appears to be the author's resume. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete literally just a resume, as per nom. There are a few sources that quote him in his role as commissioner, but I don't believe there is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. - ManicSpider (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously a dumped resume - Satu Suro 23:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Polyamorph (talk) 17:03, 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 speedy delete. CSD G11. This article is a blatant advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Keynes Car Show[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced, and is little more than a poorly written advertisement. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advert. No sign of notability either, but the advert bit is more speedily deletable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:46, 18 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) 18:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaytie Anderson[edit]

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

I can't find any information that verifies that this wrestler exists. The page List of WWE Women's Champions does not confirm the claim that she was one of them. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably a hoax, but in any case, this fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. Given that she is supposed have been a WWE champion; and given how formidable the WWE hype machine is; it simply beggars belief that I find absolutely no sources about this. Not even unreliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Nikki♥311 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. --JN 466 16:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was never Women's Champion. I doubt this person even exists. Should really be up for speedy delete, to be frank. LordSousa (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:15, 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 redirect to List of Degrassi characters. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane McKay[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, this Degrassi related article has no sources or citations or third party coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 08:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless you want all Degrassi character articles deleted. It is like all the others, which gets its info from the TV series. 117Avenue (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added three citations. Ng.j (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Degrassi characters. This is a prime example of fancruft and extreme minutia. This minor character's history should be summarized in no more than 3 to 5 sentences. PK T(alk) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above Ng.j (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck; you have already expressed a "keep" opinion above. Sandstein 13:41, 16 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, Sandstein 13:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Degrassi characters per ~~WP:POKEMON~~ WP:NFICT. The three sources are insufficient to establish notability (due to lack of independence or reliability or depth of coverage): one derivative guidebook, one is from a not reliable website, and the third, and interview with a passing mention of the character.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to have sufficient citations to continue development. Mathewignash (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number/quality of existing citations isn't relevant. He's a fictional character and of minor importance to the series, therefore there shouldn't be an article. PK T(alk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or redirect to List of Degrassi characters. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list. None of the sources actually address the character in any great detail and I couldn't find anything else by searching, so he would appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFICT on his own. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:04, 24 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) 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date Mart[edit]

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

The original version of this article, which was proposed for deletion, included an accreditation of this term to a computer scientist whose name bears a strong resemblance to the username of the author of the article, implying original research. That accreditation has been removed along with the proposed deletion template. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accreditation has been removed per my understanding of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datasanj (talk • contribs) 14:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my vote. There is no verifiable source. The text is unclearly written. Notability is not well established. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find substantial coverage of this to indicate that this a well-defined and noted type of database. I though this paper might have something, but it turns out to have been a typo, and was really referring to "data mart". -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 18 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. Keep !voters have identified coverage in independent sources; the delete side has not claimed that the coverage is not significant. The consensus is therefore that the subject passes the GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mah-Rukh Ali[edit]

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

I don't see her meeting any of the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. gnews confirms she's had roles as a journalist [11], but besides the news source cited in the article. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the first GNews hit is titled "Mah-Rukh Ali historical". Not just a journalist. Geschichte (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

news anchor is part of journalism, I don't see this person meeting WP:CREATIVE. which criterion do they meet? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with this in-depth article, in English, in a book [12], as well as the two articles about her (only one was transferred when it was translated from the Norwegian), she has multiple significant mentions in reliable sources. Edgepedia (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments for notability, thus far, appear to be that she appears occasionally on Norwegian TV and is one of the few Pakistanis living in Norway. Unfortunately, the notability bar for inclusion in WP is set much higher than that. Merely reading the local news on the air is not enough to establish notability; merely belonging to an ethnic group is not enough to establish notability. And, of course, when you combine those two deficiencies in notability, you do not create notability. Zero plus zero equals zero. Qworty (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record: Not "occasionally". Not "local news". Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not subjective judgements of importance. The 25-page book chapter linked above, along with other sources such as this book, clearly demonstrates that this subject meets this standard. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:35, 18 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) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kantararu Maheshwararu[edit]

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

Notability issues. WP:GNG (Significant coverage) fail. The references cited, inclusing news reports, where he is mentioning in passing reference or cxommenting on the controversies. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Fails WP:GNG. Not enough significant coverage to warrant an artcle on Wikipedia. However if someone could find any significant coverage in regional language sources, my support will change to Keep. --Nayvik (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing about the subject in WP:RS. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:00, 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 deleted by User:Ironholds as author blanked. ... discospinster _talk 15:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Orbit[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Borderline A7 depending on the interpretation of "credible" claims of significance. VQuakr (talk) 10:55, 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 speedy deleted by User:HJ Mitchell, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. For future reference, should the article be recreated, the consensus is clear that the article should be deleted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Dhaka[edit]

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

Contested prod; fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). The books supposedly authored by this guy do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Also, conflict of interest: the main contributors are Jadugardhaka ("Magician Dhaka" in Hindi) and Ajaydhaka. No reliable sources to support the claims made in the article ("one of top ethical hacker and cyber security consulatnt in India" or "well known personality in corporate world"). utcursch | talk 10:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. looks like a vanity bio--Sodabottle (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sodabottle. Dspradau → talk 14:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt This has been repeatedly recreated.OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 16:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the new refs, the article is largely unsourced and does not demonstrate real notability. It was undoubtedly written for promotional purposes by the subject himself. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7/G11 and salt Nothing remotely resembling notability. Author also attempted to blank the AfD. See also WP:Vanispamcruftisement. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there have been at least two attempts by SPAs to alter the votes in this AfD. I just fixed one of them. Other page watchers should be on the lookout for similar disruptive editing. In other news, the sources added to these articles are incidental mentions and not worth changing a vote over. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per newly added references. Dekatech (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC) — Dekatech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete and salt for all the reasons given. Qworty (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think notable person is renowed ethical hacker from india. Dekatech (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Struck double vote[reply]
Delete not notable and looks like a vanity article. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:09, 18 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaycee Records[edit]

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

non notable record label WuhWuzDat 14:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied the article up, cutting out fluff and adding content from the sources. These are mainstream national newspapers, so perhaps establish notability. But the company is just a start-up at this stage, possibly using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Not sure about this one... Aymatth2 (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if for no other reason than to help fill out the Nigerian record labels category.. it's still borderline as for as notability, but at least with Aymatth2's changes it's not a complete write-off,, -- œ ^™ 21:57, 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, Courcelles 00:13, 9 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, Davewild (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs work, particularly with respect to sourcing, but adds information and is suitably non-commercial for inclusion, in my judgement. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill (band)[edit]

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

Page created by a user who appears to have a COI. A Google search gives no pertinent hits for "Windmill Matthew Thomas Dilton". This seems to be a page created in an effort to promote an unknown band. Travelbird (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable musical project that has never charted. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You should both perhaps look here for how to search for sources before deciding that an article should be deleted (per WP:BEFORE). I found all these: BBC review, NME Review, Drowned in Sound review, Paste article, Gigwise.com review, Metro interview, The Guardian review, tinymixtapes review, NME review, SPIN review, MOJO review, Les Inrockuptibles review. Quite clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)...and there's a review at Allmusic as well.--Michig (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michig (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not all, but more than enough of the sources mentioned by Michig are sufficient to assert notability and are reliable sources (checked and verified). They just need adding to the article. Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm pretty sure it only took Michig about 10 minutes to come up with those sources. It took the nominator less than than after article creation to put it up for deletion. Bad form old bean. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You would have to search 'Dillon' not 'Dilton'. I was swamped with information under the correct search. Alberforce (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberforce (talk • contribs) 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their video "Tokyo Moon" was nominated for a British Animation Award in 2008 and screened at the BFI. Rather notable. [13]Alberforce (talk) 13:32, 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 delete. Insufficient secondary coverage. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDoc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article doesnot meet notability guideline (WP:N) of Wikipedia! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 07:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 07:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 07:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't take off, despite its heavy backing. Mostly staffed/stuffed by cardiologists. JFW | T@lk 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was notable and still is. Just because a site is not growing does not mean it was not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Doc James is having a WP:COI with other editors here! He has restored the WikiDoc article which was deleted by consensus! Now he is actively participating in two other discussions 1 2 and voting to keep articles which have no notability on Wikipedia ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Doc James: I understand that you are a doctor and so I am but it doesnot mean that we have to keep fighting for projects which are not notable on WIkipedia. I agree that they may be notable in the medical field but they doesnot meet the Wikipedia guidlines! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is absolutely no evidence that Doc James has a conflict of interest. There is evidence, however, that the nominator does (as demonstrated in Doc James' comment below). Polyamorph (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Would support merging all the medical wikis into a single page called Online medical wiki encyclopedias including Ask Dr Wiki, Ganfyd, Medcyclopaedia, Medpedia, Radiopaedia, WikiDoc and WikiSurgery. Per COI User:Burhan Ahmed runs/works on Medicalopaedia [14] and User:Midgley runs/works on Ganfyd. All of these pages have about equal notability. On a single page it would be easier to compare and contrast them. Also many of the refs mention a few of them in the same text.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is my vote. This article uses self-published sources (WikiDoc own site), poorly establishes notability, and is argumentative (example: "WikiDoc differs from Wikipedia in the following ways"). I have no comment regarding the new merge suggestion. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closer - Please review the related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ganfyd (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AskDrWiki.com. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect per Doc James, there are independent 3rd party sources available for this site, some of which are already cited. Merging with the articles on other similar sites is an option although they are seperate entities.Polyamorph (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless I'm missing something. Of the five sources in the article, only three are independent, and not one offers significant coverage - the ABC News piece, for example, devotes only 40 words to them while discussing the general topic of medical information online. I tried four or five different searches to find more convincing sources, and these two News results were as good as it got. Not quite enough under WP:GNG I'm afraid. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:20, 25 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. Incredibly lengthy and detailed article, but essentially unsourced OR. "Keep" arguments (and votes) didn't actually refer to policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya contributions to Indian railways[edit]

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

Very extensive article on the contributions of an ethnic group to the construction of Indian railways. However it is entirely unsourced and seems to be entirely OR. If this was published in some other form elsewhere - possibly we could accept it via Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials ?? Travelbird (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They had the monopoly on the railway construction industry for around a hundred years. The material is from various sources listed on the main Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya page which I need to spend another 2 or 3 hours on before I can finish it for the GOCE drive. At that point I will turn to adding the refs from there tomorrow after a little sleeping as it is 07:30 here lol - unless someone else can do it. It seems a shame to waste the material which is basically a detailed history of the construction of the Indian railways. Chaosdruid (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I hadn't realized that you were copying the material from elsewhere on Wikipedia. If sources/refs are added within the next week then this AfD will just be closed as "keep" and that'll be the end of the matter. Travelbird (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - my edit summary on the page creation did say "moved from Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya page" to try and ensure the new page patrollers would realise that very point lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my conversation with Chaosdruid here. While we are at it, I think we should also tackle the other three articles on the same topic out there. These all appear to be dumps of the same books and on the same topic under multiple titles. —SpacemanSpiff 09:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has a lot of potential, has refs. and biblio., more importantly work on improvement can be, and is being, done. The inline refs necessary are available, although the main writer has just gone into hospital for surgery and it may be a few weeks before the inlines can be made from the biblio., they merely require page numbers specific to the listed work from those books. I am sure that after a few weeks the consensus would be to keep and add cn's etc. where necessary. The other articles are a different matter and should not really reflect on this one. Kadia kshatriyas are an overview of the community, with the Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya being the Gujar region group, the Mistri or Mistry being a supervisor/foreman/ganger level the page Mistri (caste) is a little strange, as are a lot of the Indian articles, as it seems to be claiming to be an ethnic group. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is in fact a detailed chornological history of development of Railways in British India, in which the major contributions are from this KGK Community.

I have also been one of the other major Contributor to this page apart from the creator of Page ( who as per talk with Chaodruid has informed that he is in for a surgery ). However, I am well aware of the Subject ( KGK ) and most of the book written about them over the century are written in Gujarati language. The article had been created with many pains ( taking translations from books ) (1) Nanji Bapa ni Nondh-pothi (1999) published in Gujrati. (2) Ratna Bhagat ni Chopdi : 1930 ( 1st & 2nd editions) (3) Kutch Tari Asmita : K. K Chauhan (1925). (4) Experts from Encyclopaedia of Bengal, Bihar & Orissa ( sub section : People from the region ) : 1920 & 1924-25. (5) Shree Kutch Gurjar Kshatriya Samaj : A brief History & Glory of our fore-fathers (2007) (6) Diary of Golden Days at Jharia – A Memoir & History of Gurjar Kashtriya Samaj of Kutch in Coalfields of Jharia – written by Natwarlal Devram Jethwa of Calcutta (1998). Please note that the book Nanji Bapa ni nondh pothi was awarded prestigious Kutch Shakti Award in 2000. This Award is given by a penal of eminent jurist for the works or to persons from Kutch after lot of debate & research. Google search result of Kutch Shakti Award [15]. Further if you go here [16], in one of the PDF, you can find the list of Contractor published in a book from 1896 AD, when the persons who have done these railway contracts were alive & kicking. However, all these books are in Gujarati and one needs a translator. Whenever, I have added info to the article in past, it is with help from some translator. As far as in line citations are to given, it is a huge work, and one again needs to sit with some translator to add them. However, there is no need to delete such an important article. Also here is Search reult of Rai Bahadur Jagmal Raja [17], and Khora Ramji [18], two eminent Contractor of their community. I am giving this ref. because one person has argued that this article seems to dump of same books.

Also as far as pages Mistri (caste) and Kadia Kshatriya are involved. I feel they are being unnecessarily dragged in to debate here. If someone feels those pages are not worthy, they can start a debate separately.

I vote for article as KEEP. Thank you Hardyraj (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is substantial and can be (as it should be) sourced. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:59, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 08:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzaga High School[edit]

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

I'm not sure as to inclusion standards here, but I'm not sure this has the notability for inclusion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We normally retain articles on high schools based on our high school notability essay. Read the talk page, which quotes the opinion of Jimbo Wales on this matter. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, the opinion quoted is from 2003, and Wikipedia was a very different place then. I don't give policies and discussions from then a whole lot of credence. Also, Jimbo has no more authority than anyone else here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy, guideline, or essay WP:FRESHPOLICY that says we should heed only the most recent policies and guidelines, and ignore those which have been around for several years? ? Edison (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The consensus of the Wikipedia community, demonstrated in hundreds of AFDs in recent years, has been that legitimate high schools are notable. The exception might be some tiny home school or private school. Primary schools are usually merged to the locality or school district. I see no reason why this case is different. I agree with the cited essay: "With suitable research, independent sources that at least barely meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG can almost always be found for any government-run high school, and for all but the smallest private high schools. This is because high schools are usually prominent and significant in their local communities, and consequently are written about by the local newspapers (particularly in smaller towns). As with other types of articles, we do not delete an article because editors have not yet cited their sources, but only if there is no evidence that independent, reliable sources exist." Edison (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like Snow Keep, go ahead and close this as keep, not nomination withdrawn. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this pup under the doctrine of inherent notability of secondary schools. Carrite (talk) 05:57, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ants in the apple[edit]

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

My first concern with this article was copyright infringement, since it presented the lyrics verbatim. I've done a search, and I can't find writing credits for the song. That said, I can't find much in the way of any documentation about the song, other than the lyrics and how it's useful for teaching purposes. That leaves an article with nothing but the lyrics, and while that could be acceptable at Wikisource, it's not here. —C.Fred (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. db-G12 I found the information. Song was published in 1996. Copyright protection until 2066 [Created/Published Date + 70 Years]. Written by Vicki Easson and Lin Meeks. Copyright permissions state "You may copy under some circumstances, for example you may copy a portion for research or study." http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/16238723?selectedversion=NBD11893391 Cind.amuse 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of scope per WP:NOT even ignoring the copyright violation identified by Cindamuse. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I removed the copyrighted lyrics, what's left is an unsourced one-sentence article about a song with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One sentence article with no indication of why it is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find discussion about the song on blogs and web boards, but I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Are you kidding me with this??? Hahaaa Theuhohreo (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Above. Five Years 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's also "Ants on the Apple: An Alphabet Songbook" by Tishy Bruce from 1993 ISBN: 9839808338 . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:46, 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} 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elissa (singer)[edit]

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

Delete as a copyright violation of the listed sources. A number of phrases and/or sections are directly copied from http://www.elissalovers.net/biography.php (and variations of this site), http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/elissa/biography.html and http://www.top99women.com/content/elissa. The page also claims multiple unverifiable things without sufficiently providing reliable independent sources and/or coverage. all in all a good thorough violation of WP:BLP. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has a search been done for reliable sources, so we can say there's nothing written about her (in English, at least) in reliable publications? —C.Fred (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most references are in English and all are reliable. The article deletion is completely unnecessary. I've researched all over and verified everything as much as I could, I can't do any more. There are many articles that require close development yet this article is only picked on because she is an Arab. I hope somebody saves this page, it's been perceived negatively and unfavourably by cruel and inappreciative editors. —Thamerr (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your comments are completely devoid of WP:CIVIL behaviour. In one swoop you've alluded to me being a racist and you've insulted my editing choice to nominate this article for deletion per WP:BIO. I'm sorry but regardless of this artist's ethnicity the article is not well written. Large chunks of it are copyright violations (e.g. the examples given in my nomination). It heavily relies on the use of the singer's own website and a fansite for much of the information. Fansites vary rarily reliable per WP:RS. Thus deleting a page of an artist which has had very little coverage from third party reliable sources, which is based almost entirely on the singer's own website and which uses a fansite as the main alternative source fails wikipedia policy on many grounds. Referring to other articles existing really doesn't help or hinder this deletion discussion. I suggest you retract your comments about the artist being Arab, and the cruel and inappreciative editors phrase as they are not civil and highly misleading as well as offensive to myself and other editors who have/might comment on this article. Additionally I chose to nominate this article after seeing that it had been nominated for GA and a quick trawl of the article showed a history of poorly sourced information and image violations. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article relies heavily on fansites and other sources that are not reliable. Based on Thamerr's comment about having researched all over and not being able to do any more, I conclude that there are no sources lurking out there, so that negates my reservation about whether a search had been done. Accordingly, I agree with the nominator: BLP concerns, claims that can't be verified, and lifting of passages from other websites. —C.Fred (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Improving the article is impossible due to the lack of sources. Delete or stubify. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:55, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Gagnani[edit]

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

nn vanispamicruftisement, already deleted Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. --Nayvik (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 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, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as the article seems to establish notability, but has lots of poor information, such as the Personal Interests section, which could be the poster child for WP:OR. It also has WP:POV issues.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (police chief)[edit]

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

Blatant violation of WP:BLP. It seems like an almost direct copy of the one reference given. There is no evidence of notability and no in-line citations. Also there has been no attempts to improve the article since it was tagged in May 2010. I'm struggling to see such a purpose for the article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely non-notable. One of a series of articles created by someone who wanted to do biographies of the celebrities in the town of Ferguson, Missouri. There's another one for the Mayor and another one for the police department, and as nominator points out, there seems to be a case of duplicating the city's webpage over here. Never heard of Ferguson, Missouri? Neither had I, but it's less than 25,000 folks, so there's nothing inherently notable about the police chief or mayor, and Chief Jackson doesn't pass WP:PEOPLE. Mandsford 14:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 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, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ferguson Missouri Police Department, small city police chief.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject doesn't meet our notability guidelines. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO/ Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:14, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Ellis (UK Youth Parliament)[edit]

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

restored after prod: non-notable person; no 3rd party sources that discuss this person Tassedethe (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and optionally Redirect to UK Youth Parliament#Board of Trustees. No evidence of notability independent of the UK Youth Parliament. Yes, some members of the board of trustees are notable, but only because they're MPs in their own right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Work is certainty needed on the article, but there is a reasonable amount coverage of Sam Ellis, mostly in relation to Youth Parliament, in the Media to give notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.72.49 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to show what the coverage is for the article to stay. I found next to nothing with a Google News search of "Sam Ellis" Youth Parliament. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not notable, but it does mean we'll have to see what the coverage is rather than just take someone's word for it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I hadn't noticed that you'd added references to the article. However, this is way short of significant independent coverage as required in the notability guidelines. Out of the six sources, three don't mention Sam Ellis at all, one is a comment posted by himself to the Guardian website, one is an entry on the Youth Parliament site, and one is a transcript of a debate in Parliament. None of those are evidence of independent reliable sources consider Sam Ellis notable enough to write about. There's always the possibility there are better sources out there, but as it stands this isn't enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands the only independent coverage of Sam Ellis in the article is a local paper piece. Searching supplies nothing more substantial - so falls well short of WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 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, — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject is not (yet) notable. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources, just the one local newspaper article. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:06, 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 merge to Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Freedom (SAFETEA-LU)[edit]

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

Verbatim copied from http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_7184.html. While not a copyright violation, I don't think we should be blatantly mirroring sites (external link or reworded article). — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 03:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarize and merge into Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.Then redirect to the section of the latter article. Imzadi 1979 → 22:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise, merge and then redirect per Imzadi1979. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per above. Content would be helpful in expanding the parent SAFETEA-LU article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

smerge per Imzadi1979 Admrboltz (talk) 19:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Joined a Teen-Age Sex Club[edit]

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

Unsure about the notability or the encyclopedic content of this article Cssiitcic (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been sourced. It is one of the most notorious comic book stories of its genre and period, and warrants an article here. The article will grow if the editor is permitted some time to develop it. Could we make a rule that articles must be allowed 24 hours "to stand" following initial submission before being rushed to AfD (except of course, obvious pranks, hoaxes, and vandalism)? SingToMePlease (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If the article was nominated in good faith, I personally don't see the need to implement such a guideline. As I have stated before, WP:DEADLINE can work both ways. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHANCE and WP:DEMOLISH. SingToMePlease is right. There is no good reason to nominate an article for AfD within 24 hours of its creation. If an article qualifies for speedy deletion, of course, that's different. But if there's anything to discuss, that should take place first on the article's talk page. Rushing to AfD discourages positive contributions to the article. YardsGreen (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CHANCE. Article is already partially referenced and therefore should not be deleted. Miyagawa talk 17:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 18 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} 06:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of CAD, CAM and CAE file viewers[edit]

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

This is just a directory therefore it ought to be deleted per WP:NOTDIR. Moreover, there are no references to assert notability. The references provided merely supply support for various details for each entry. Wizard191 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe this list should be an Annex, instead of an article. In any case, I would keep it because:

It is more than a simple directory, as it includes columns with technical specs for each software.

Wikpedia has other articles or annexes which are lists of software products, and we are not deleting them. --Jordiferrer (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is a list article that is not even close to being unique on Wikipedia. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 18 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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wensicia[edit]

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

Minor character in the Dune novels. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Striking delete vote; on second thoughts merge is better. Note that the notability of the actress playing this character doesn't automatically make the character per se notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor character, but played by a very major actress in the SyFy adaptation, who has received lots of news coverage thereby. Also appears in a number of books aside from the novels, though I don't see any that are really major coverage. Failing that, could be merged to List of Dune Bene Gesserit. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has sufficient citations to prove it's being developed. Mathewignash (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above, the character may be secondary, but she is certainly notable. Herbert's novels are obviously very dense with theme and metaphor, I recall an analysis that discusses his use of the character but can't for the moment recall where, I will look through some of my sources as I feel this would impact this discussion. I believe there is room to expand this article in a meaningful way that does not rely solely on plot; and say what you will, but the article's content is tight, cited, and in better shape than most incomplete character articles. As always, it's a little frustrating when material is deleted rather than preserved in a more appropriate way. If consensus finds the article not worthy, I'd ask that we merge some of its content elsewhere.— TAnthony^Talk 04:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge shows promise. Needs more out of universe information to meet WP:NOT#PLOT but I'm willing to go out on a limb that the current sources suggest that there's more good stuff out there. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dune Bene Gesserit per standard procedure for minor fictional characters. Not sufficient third-party coverage for an independent article. Sandstein 06:56, 24 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) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Micallef[edit]

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

Person fails WP:NACTOR with not notable roles. While there are hits on the internet no site has actual information on her that has not been copied from Wikipedia. Derild 49 21 Review Me! 01:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks that she meets WP:ENT as her career in Malta is apparently sourcable,[19] and she appears notable enough to Maltese television... and notability to Malta is fine for en.Wikipedia. What would be helpful is to have Maltese Wikiedians who would have access to hardcopy coverage come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:15, 5 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, Courcelles 00:07, 9 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) 01:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no sources to back any of this up. The linked articles are redirects to completely different topics. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:40, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political system[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is just a random collection of links and unsourced statements, and the topics it links to are already covered in Forms of government, government, and/or state (polity). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close AfD is not WP:PM. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that AfD is WP:PM. I'm saying that the content should be moved into those three articles, and then this page should be deleted. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, scratch that. Since this article is almost completely unsourced, and poorly written (it's mostly just a random collection of links), this page should simply be deleted. There is nothing worth keeping from it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Although much below the lede is list-class the article has merit and just should be improved. I would be extremely surprised if political system were not an encyclopedic topic, and the start is there.... L.tak (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article needs improvements, as previous noted. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a confusion between this and Forms of Government, and a lot of overlap partly as a consequence. Forms are to do with structure, the political system wider; but that is inadequate as a distinction and ignores the interdependence. Whilst I don't rule out amalgamation it means a rewrite and I would probably want to keep Political System as the heading with a redirect from Forms of Government. It's a difficult article to write anyway, which has been the problem. We need somebody with a proper understanding of the width of the topic, and where the boundaries lie with related articles. It's one thing to know a list of categories, but unless the writer understands how they function, at least as archetypes, I doubt that it will be possible to do the subject justice. Citation needs to be well of chosen sources/further reading. AJHingston (talk) 17:20, 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 No consensus, default to Keep. Walton^One 11:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Mile Education Foundation[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is just a small Pittsburgh educational foundation. Rd232 ^talk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 2 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, Courcelles 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does contain two independent sources. One is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which covers the foundation in detail. The other is Charity Navigator, and I'm not sure whether that counts as reliable. Charity Navigator appears to have appropriate editorial oversight, but I don't know if there's a wider Wikipedia policy regarding Charity Navigator. There is at least one other small mention of the foundation in the Post Gazette, and Media Matters has a page on it. The foundation is also featured in the newspaper Pittsburgh Catholic although both the newspaper and the foundation seem to be owned by the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh. Overall, I think there's probably enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, even though the article clearly needs a cleanup. YardsGreen (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has exactly 1 (one) non-trivial reliable source which is independent of the subject (2007 Pittsburgh Gazette article). The links you mention are trivial or not independent of the subject (and Media Matters is clearly scraping CharityNavigator, and neither provides even the most trivial of descriptions of the subject). Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that Media Matters is scraping Charity Navigator. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see the Media Matters information anywhere in the Charity Navigator page. There is also quite a lot of basic information in Charity Navigator that it would be odd for Media Matters to not include if they were scraping the Charity Navigator page. Moreover, reliable sources are not limited to textual descriptions of the subject. A page with statistical and financial information on a subject is a legitimate source for establishing notability, provided that the source otherwise meets the standards of WP:RS. I believe that Charity Navigator does meet these standards. If you disagree, please be specific in giving your reason(s) why. For the Media Matters source, I can't find anything at [20] that describes their editorial policy, so I don't know whether they should be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. But the article already has at least two non-trivial, independent reliable sources. YardsGreen (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is only one non-trivial independent source relevant for notability: the 2007 Gazette article. The others are mere directory entries, or not independent, or trivial. CharityNavigator's description of the foundation, BTW, is taken from the foundation [21]. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - From WP:SOURCES: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I believe that Charity Navigator satisfies this requirement. Once again, reliable sources are not limited to textual descriptions, and there is far more information at the Charity Navigator page than just the textual description (probably enough, in my opinion, to satisfy WP:GNG). You are ignoring all non-textual information at this source. You may legitimately disagree that a source is reliable, but it is not legitimate to claim so because the source's information is not in the textual format you would prefer. YardsGreen (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Additional source Note that there is a second Gazette article. The article's topic is a reorganization of schools to which the foundation is connected, and the article provides details on the foundation and the schools. The two non-trivial Gazette articles, the Charity Navigator page and the Media Matters page are enough to establish notability. YardsGreen (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. To me this doesn't amount to a hill of beans; it's a local foundation which doesn't even provide services, just raises money and passes it on; it's got some local newspaper coverage and a couple of directory entries (it's probably in the phone book too...). I suppose if a reasonable merge target were suggested, that might be an option, but it's just not independently meriting an entry, for me. Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does seem to fail to have the sources necessary to establish notability. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in my book see:
- Gregory A. Morris; et al. (2000). "Listening to Student: Voices from the Inner City". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice. 4 (1). Chesnut Hill, MA: Boston College Roche Center for Catholic Education: 7. Retrieved 2011-01-24.
- Preserving a Critical National Asset America’s Disadvantaged Students and the Crisis in Faith-based Urban Schools (PDF) (Report). The White House Domestic Policy Council. September 2008. p. 31. Retrieved 2011-01-24. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:04, 24 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) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IEC Fabchem Ltd.[edit]

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

Fails WP:N no references or indication of notability, quick search found no refs, as stands article is advert, written by WP:COI editor

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 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, Courcelles 00:12, 9 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, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article doesn't have much content to even be called an article or even a stub. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:47, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Small Machines[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. hardly any coverage [22]. I have also nominated their EP album for deletion. LibStar (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 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, Courcelles 00:12, 9 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, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Generally non notable band which also fails to pass WP:BAND criteria. The template ((Beautiful Small Machines)) will also need deleting. Mattg82 (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ditto to Mattg82's comments. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:48, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vane Millon[edit]

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

Non-notable model/actress; a google search resulted in no non-trivial mention in reliable sources that I could see; the most significant being part of a sentence in a large article about someone else: [23]. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 2 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, Courcelles 00:13, 9 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, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, with the usual caveat that we can certainly revisit the subject if she becomes more notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:16, 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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Zilincik[edit]

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

Doesn't show how the subject meets the notability criteria set out at WP:MUSIC (contested prod). Jeremy (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers - Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some references and tidied up a bit. I think he meets the minimum requirements. Pkeets (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't think the previous references were adequate (they were primarily sources by Zilincik himself, rather than sources by other people about him) and in some cases they said things that contradicted what more reliable sources said (for instance, Zilincik seems to have been calling himself a head of a department while his department's web site only lists him as an assistant professor and as head of an "area"). And if he was a tuba soloist for multiple symphonies, as his article alleged without sources, it wasn't a significant enough role to make it into published reviews of their concerts. I did find a couple of small newspaper stories that mention him nontrivially: one about a local tuba festival and one about a concert that included a work a friend of his in Arizona had commissioned. I don't think that's quite enough for WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability more substantial than this is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, unnotable. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 05:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COMPOSERS requires that he appear at reasonable length in publications in his genre. Tuba is something of an off-beat genre and a search of the lit on it brings his name up fairly regularly, even if the mentions aren't especially relevant for this article. The level of coverage justifies the space for at least a start level article. BTW, his compositions are listed for sale at music press websites. Aren't these sufficient sources to list them in the article? Also, why should a citation be required for the schools he graduated from? These would have been verified on his employment application with Capital University where he's currently employed and where his biography is posted. Pkeets (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COMPOSER #6 requires that he appear at reasonable length in standard reference books on his genre. What do you interpret his genre of composition to be, what are those standard reference books, and what do they say about him? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking through the music he has for sale, his primary genre seems to be tuba music, and I consider professional journals to be "standard reference books" as they are published in volumes. Here's a competition website verifying him as (former) director of the Ohio Brass Band: [24], a statement now removed from the article. Pkeets (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it meant journal articles it would have said so. And the content needs to be about Zilincik, not by him. Google books has exactly three hits for the combination of tuba and Zilincik: all are journals not books, one is by him, one is his name in the caption of a photo, and one is his name in a list of compositions. That doesn't look like "reasonable length" and it doesn't look like "standard reference books" to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not going to argue about it; it's just my opinion that professional journals and newsletters are good quality references for what's going on in a particular genre. For example, they provide invaluable information on what was going on in the 1800s. Here's commercial credit verification of a soloist gig with the Brass Band of Colombus, a statement now removed from the article [25]. Check the CD tracklists--they've misspelled his name. He's also listed here on B-flat tuba [26]. I added some of this information back in with sources. Pkeets (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        We're up to 16 sources now. Pkeets (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per —David Eppstein. It's about quality not quantity of references. These are almost all faculty/band potted bios, event listings, or simple band member listings and are either trivial or not indendent of the subject + some very brief mentions in a local paper. Have his compositions been premiered by notable/leading ensembles, in notable venues? Has he been the principal tuba of a major orchestra? Are there any reviews of his work? None that I can see. Is he a full tenured professor, whose work is frequently cited? Has he won any major awards. Does he have multiple recordings on notable label? Nope. I know this is a niche area but compare to Steven Mead. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Woefully insufficient WP:RS. Almost every reference is web flotsam (university listings, pdf files, etc). While there is one mention in his local newspaper, that is very obviously trivial. It now seems clear that there are no real sources to demonstrate notability. Article is WP:SPA-created, so this may be little more than a vanity page. Uncontroversial policy-based delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- See Wikipedia:RS for the status of journal articles as reliable sources. Pkeets (talk) 06:46, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Cummings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

No indication that she would meet WP:CREATIVE for her directorship work either. NW (Talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 01:11, 9 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) 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite extensive filmography and adult magazine appearances, agreed that there do not appear to be RS that subject meets PORNBIO (or GNG) or CREATIVE. I tried some web searching as well as Google Books, Scholar, News Archive, JSTOR and LEXISNEXIS. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:21, 18 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) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alexander Sterling[edit]

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

Fairly clear case of WP:BLP1E. He was arrested last week for leaking information to an NYT reporter, which has caused the recent media coverage; the only other "big" thing he did is trying to sue the CIA for racial discrimination, which failed, back in 2002. The latter, as far as I can tell, was not a major incident and I don't think it's enough to discard the BLP1E situation. Neither do the two combined make him worthy of inclusion here, BLP1E or not. (He was never a ranking CIA official or anything.)

I also would like to advise against the creation of a separate article about the information leak, which some might propose to address the BLP1E issue. This is just the latest in a series of information leakages by government officials that the Obama administration is cracking down on; unless something is the scale of United States diplomatic cables leak, this seems to be actually a not-very-rare occurrence that doesn't have much more than routine news coverage to establish notability. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I favor deleting this article for the reason stated above. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (from the creator of the article) - if the indictment turns out to be true, the person is the original sources for the information on Operation Merlin and the book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. Also, the indictment is based on the Espionage Act of 1917, as is Bradley Manning's indictment, which puts in on a similar scale. Charges under the Espionage Act for mishandling classified information are indeed a "very-rare occurrence" - fifth time this has now happened since the law was passed in 1917, i.e. 94 years ago. -- Enemenemu (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have to fully agree with Enemenemu.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 10 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) 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addition to my posting above (from the creator of the article): WP:BLP1E is not justified. The discrimination case had received national (e.g. People Magazine, MSNBC) and international (ABC Radio National) news coverage. -- Enemenemu (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are major news outlets covering an eight or nine year period. Location (talk) 00:32, 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minako Hamano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated article that has not addressed any of the problems for which it was deleted a mere week ago: Not a single reliable and independent source with non-trivial coverage. The only information on the subject itself, her birth date and the date of birth, are unsourced. The rest is a verbose version of composition and arrangement credits half of which are bogus (no Hamano Metroid music on Video Games Live CD or in any Play: A Video Game Symphony concerts), and reception of the games citing sources without page numbers or evidence of Hamano even being mentioned. Prime Blue (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Prime Blue (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)—Prime Blue (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Prime Blue (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information included in the article is standard for establishing the notability of living composers. 1) Her work has been credited on notable media. 2) Her music has been performed by notable musicians and orchestras internationally. 3) Her work has received reviews in industry sources, including published books and magazines. Date and place of birth is not usually sourced unless there are conflicting references. Other information on her personal life is unnecessary and might be considered an invasion of privacy. Pkeets (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherent: Just because a game she composed music for is notable does not mean she herself is notable. She still does not fulfill the criteria of WP:COMPOSER and there hasn't been a single reliable independent source with non-trivial coverage added since the last delete, which is a prerequisite for any article on Wikipedia. You try to justify the lack of biographical information with invasion of privacy, but the fact of the matter is that you can't provide any sources – which was the reason why the article was deleted by Spartaz. And the sources you did add can't possibly justify this article: A single sentence on the music of Metroid Prime 3 buried in a review, a comment by a fan arranger, and the inclusion of Super Metroid in a "top games" list. You even worded one of these references as if it specifically addressed the soundtrack as her work, when in fact she didn't even get a mention. Prime Blue (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are specific to soundtracks for which she is credited. If I write a magazine article discussing the work Boléro or Tubular Bells, it's not necessary to name the composer because the work itself is well-known. What kind of biographical information are you expecting other than what's given in the article? Pkeets (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my comments offended you. Background on her upbringing, musical education, how she got involved with game music and came to work at Nintendo would go a long way of expanding the biographical information. Anything that is actually sourced would be a start, but most importantly, as said before, reliable independent sources with non-trivial coverage are needed. Prime Blue (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to satisfy the notability criteria. Blogs and other wiki sites used as reference sources just don't count, I'm afraid. --DAJF (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check her qualifications against WP:COMPOSER.Pkeets (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be relisted for further discussion when the Prod runs out? I don't see many people checking in here. Pkeets (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- She CLEARLY is notable, when one considers the number of official releases her music has been featured on (which, granted, isn't all of those -- all the ones in the 'featured on' list are fan made discs. But the white and yellow in the disography are official). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CD releases or number of CD releases are not part of the composer notability criteria, though. And she still fails the general notability criteria. Prime Blue (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Did that change from some time ago? Super Metroid Sound in Action (as well as the two Orchestral Game Concert discs) are on Sony too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:46, 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) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: although notability is asserted, I'm seeing hints of WP:SYN and other issues with this article that brings the topic into question.— fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding guidelines for information in biographies of living persons: WP:BLP. Her accomplishments (as noted by Melodia) should be sufficient. Pkeets (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which paragraph are you referring to? Prime Blue (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Presumption in favor of privacy". Pkeets (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the paragraph, not the section. I don't understand what passage you were referring to when you brought it up. Prime Blue (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph, for example, regarding previous requests for the inclusion of more personal information in the article, and for primary sources such as interviews:

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private...See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

Again, the subject's accomplishments should be sufficient as the basis for an article. Pkeets (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom and DAJF. Would be willing to change my view if any solid info emerges. --Klein zach 09:42, 25 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) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Uehara[edit]

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

Delete - working young actor, and good luck to him, but nothing to point to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Japanese actor who has has significant roles in several TV and film productions. Geofth (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which listed do you see as significant?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admins please consider this hit-and-run editor who shows up sporadically, opines then leaves for months without backing up claims. Nothing in the article presently shows notability.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 01:17, 9 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) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article does not establish notability beyond a list performances in projects that have their own notability issues. No sources are cited. On a separate topic, to other editors, please refrain from commenting on your fellow editor's actions per WP:FOC— fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:12, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Hammer, if you want to knock this around some more let me know and I'll be happy to reopen it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quentin Collection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last two AFDs argued that sourcing was sufficient, but further inspection shows the sources to be incidental, trivial coverage or press releases, which do not meet the criteria for third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shopping centre of no particular significance. However, there's an alternative to deletion which we should consider: we could trim, merge and redirect this (and, I suggest, every other article from ((chicagomalls)) as well) into a new list called list of shopping malls in Chicago, after which the only thing we need to delete is the template. The main benefit of this is that it saves us a lot of AfDs and there are no more quibbles about notability, because individual items on a list need not be notable.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say every one by a long shot; maybe just the tinier ones like this. Even the tiny Schaumburg Place has enough sources for its own article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes. I see that. Which of the others do you think need co-nominating?—S Marshall T/C 18:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better to nominate one by one. I've found sources for pretty much everything that's on that template, including at least a couple of the redlinked ones. Most of what's been nominated today is just very, very small strip malls — which are far less likely to be notable than even a smaller enclosed mall. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 9 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) 00:45, 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. Per WP:V: The article still has zero sources, and the last "keep" opinion only makes arguments for deletion. Sandstein 06:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poplar Creek Crossing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Spammy article on a strip mall. Last AFD showed "sources" that were only trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Popularity with the local populace aside, it fails notability. Jørdan 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently just a directory of current shops at the mall. Mattg82 (talk) 23:23, 9 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) 00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment.Relisting because nobody is discussion sourcing (or lack of such) and to be sure that consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first two sources from the previous AfD clearly talk about Poplar Creek Crossing in more-than-trivial terms. The other two are harder to judge. It doesn't help that all four sources are behind paywalls, but that's no reason to consider the sources trivial. YardsGreen (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: it really needs work. In short intro paragraph, it manages to have mutliple WP issues, including WP:OR.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Maids of Honor (band)[edit]

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

Has members of notable bands but is not itself notable. Absolutely no secondary sourcing found beyond the trivial mentions present. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there was a single band to merge to I'd say merge, but as there isn't, best to leave this as a standalone. Notable musicians and passess WP:V ([27], [28], [29], [30], [31]), so no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing but one-sentence, trivial mentions among those sources. That may be enough for WP:V but not WP:GNG and I doubt that "there's nowhere to merge it to so it must be kept" is a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's compliant with all relevant policies then. Ideally it would be merged, and Smash Mouth is a possible target looking at it again. The band containing members of other notable bands gives it encyclopedic relevance - that's why the content should be kept, wherever it's located.--Michig (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a precedent that "has members of other notable bands" does not give an individual band carte blanche if they fail every other criterion of WP:BAND. I can live with it being merged and mentioned on Smash Mouth's article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 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, Courcelles 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this as a notable reference other than to it's fans. References do not support the notable nature of the subject band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhitehurst (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 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) 00:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my vote. Notability is not established well enough. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:25, 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. The article is unsourced and even an editor proposing to keep it writes "It's a piece of folk wisdom for which unreliable sources exist everywhere, but reliable sources almost nowhere"; the only source they propose is a self-published one. Per WP:V and notably WP:BURDEN, therefore, policy requires the article's deletion until reliable sources are found. Sandstein 06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifications to written Chinese in Hong Kong[edit]

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

The article is entirely unsourced and appear to be original research. Also I'm not sure the topic really is notable. The "simplifications" are equivalent to an English waiter writing "T" instead of "tea" or "C" instead of "coffee". I don't think this trivia warrants an article. Laurent (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information somewhere else? If so, I agree, but if not, it seems to me a waste of knowledge to lose these characters. Most of them are archaic elsewhere, and if someone was studying Hong Kong, or even visiting, it would be very helpful to know these things. At the very least, information from this article should be added to the pages on the characters used that already exist.Jln Dlphk (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion in the wikipedia, however. There are many things that would be useful, but are not encyclopedic or notable. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs further editing as well as added references, however the article is interesting and is of widespread public interest in my opinion worthy of inclusion.--Carol1946 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article indeed needs references, however it has been there for 5 years and never had a single source, and I can't find any myself. The fact that it is wp:interesting or wp:useful are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. In fact, I think the article is not interesting or useful because it's unsourced, so there's no way to know how often, by whom, or in which context these simplified characters are used. Laurent (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked. Nakon 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from personal experience (yes, I know that's not a source but it perhaps adds perspective) I can confirm that HK people shorthand Chinese characters in the ways the article lays out. In fact, there's a few common ones missing. I think if anything needs tweaking it's the title. I'll try and find some sources, give me a moment... Akerbeltz (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLaurent, I would take such a characterisation (waiter writing "T" instead of "tea" and "C" instead of "coffee") to be extreme. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I understood from the article. Those are apparently simplifications used by waiters - the only difference is that in Hong Kong they use Chinese characters instead of the alphabet. Laurent (talk) 10:35, 17 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) 00:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and improve: Deleting because of OR is tantamount to throwing the baby out of the bathtub, or whatever the phrase is. Plus I don't see how this article could possibly be merged into any other easily. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 06:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is still that the article is completely unsourced, and apparently nobody is able to find any source. Assuming we cannot find any reference, what do you suggest we should do? And, personally, I see no point in improving the article if it's just to add more OR to it. Laurent (talk) 10:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I find that I cannot vote to keep or delete. It is valuable and notable information, but it is unsourced (OR). Could someone contact an authority in Hong Kong for clarification on the simplification policy in Hong Kong? — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not official simplifications so we won't find anything on Hong Kong's official websites. Laurent (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning towards keep - I agree with the comment above. It's a piece of folk wisdom for which unreliable sources exist everywhere, but reliable sources almost nowhere. However there is an article online where an academic at the Chinese University of Hong Kong wrote about the subject: [32]. This article will hopefully be able to source some information in the article and save it from imminent deletion. --Der yck C. 13:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page from a teacher's personal website establishes notability. So far, it seems that all the arguments for "keep" amount to WP:ILIKEIT or it's WP:INTERESTING, but if we can't find anything more than a trivial mention in a personal homepage, perhaps we should admit that the subject is just not notable. Laurent (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are not government approved. But then neither is LOL and that exist as an article. Benjwong (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on my view of the above discussions. If anyone feels they wish to preserve the information, they are welcome to take it before deletion of the article. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 19:47, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Marie Blanton[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines listed at WP:NMUSIC - only one piece of non-trivial coverage, no chart hits, no other sufficient signs of WP:NOTABILITY. She may get there some day, good luck to her, but she isn't there yet. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 10 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) 00:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not established. — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:37, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Nomar[edit]

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

Unremarkable porn performer (fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Tabercil (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote changed to Keep, given that the subject now meets PORNBIO standards (nominations in multiple years) Tabercil (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a stub and represents sole presence from Venezuelan Porn actors. Also the concern porn actor is Ninfa award winner, he's related with spanish pornographic industry so, we shouldn't be bias for particular ethnic group Bill william compton (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gene93k: The existence of other non-noteworthy articles is not a reason to keep this one but rather a reason to propose them all for deletion. Just so you know that defense is commonly frowned upon. Non-trivial awards are good evidence though so I'm not going to judge the article itself 65.29.47.55 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm just extending the idea- why this article should not be deleted, first, as the reason is given that this article doesn't meet the criteria of notability, but as very 1st condition of notability says: Performer has won any major award related to pornographic industry, and this porn actor has nominated for AVN Award Unsung Male Performer of the Year(results pending) and won Ninfa Award at Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival which is listed on that condition of awards. I know it needs more expansion, but it doesn't mean it should be deleted.

Second, this performer has well-known identity among "Spanish Pornographic Actors", so i'll again appeal to all for retaining this article. Bill william compton (talk) 08:48, 10 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) 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above; to solidify consensus and close this AfD.— fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 03:01, 18 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 List of Dune Bene Gesserit. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darwi Odrade[edit]

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

No notability independent of the Dune franchise itself. This article would be more appropriate to a Dune wiki than a general encyclopedia. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of a whole, and simply deleting breaks the structure. Better to consolidate in perhaps a character list and redirect, as part of an overall restructuring. — Zanaq (?) 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest consolidating it in List of Dune characters; this subject is notable as a part of the cast of Dune, but not as a standalone article. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 00:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Dune Bene Gesserit. I've nominated Wensicia for Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarityfiend. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Merge into List of Dune Bene Gesserit; no matter that this is a primary character in two notable novels, I can concede that there is currently not much here but plot, and it's unlikely that anyone will be attempting any significant improvements anytime soon.— TAnthony^Talk 05:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the sake of building a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:08, 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} 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xisk[edit]

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

This game has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so this fails the general notability guideline. Prod was contested, so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non notable. Hobartimus (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim of notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedt delete web content with no claim of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold I will resolve these issues and beef up this article to Wikipedia standards. I just wanted to create the stub for now so that there was not a naked broken link on the Risk (clone) page - which is currently undergoing peer review - and all of my time and attention is there at the moment. Please be patient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policies on WP:COI first. A lot of your edits since March have in one way or the other been in promotion of Xisk, a software project you appear to have created yourself. APL (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; regardless of future article coverage, this is not notable. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone). andy (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obviously. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WikiProject Video Games reliable sources search turns up 0 hits. --Teancum (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Doesn't even assert notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity entry. Also Category: Risk (clone) should be deleted too. 2005 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert notability. Perhaps doesn't have any. APL (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software with no sourceable information indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete: If Mr. Bornert wants to resolve the issue that there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of his own creation, he should feel free to do it ... and come back to write a Wikipedia article when that is done, not before. Much better yet, he should wait until a neutral third party does so. Ravenswing 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 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} 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominate Game[edit]

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

This game has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so this fails the general notability guideline. Prod was contested, so here we are. MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue to delete as per the reasons which you stated. Quærens^{talk/contributions} 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non notable. Hobartimus (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No way is this notable. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold: it may or may not be notable on it's own; however, in the larger context of the Risk (clone) article and the collection of notable clones, it is worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riitoken (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone) andy (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SnottyWong ^communicate 23:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Also Category: Risk (clone) should be deleted too. 2005 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a token attempt at asserting notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, software with no sourceable evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. It is simply listed in directories. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 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} 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margarethe Zinndorf[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because there is no biographical information included. Robert Young, who is an expert in the field of gerontology, said that over 3 years ago on the first nomination of this article said that her record has "superceded". There are also no sources. Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is a biography that cites zero sources, and has been tagged that way for three years. WP:SNOW?— Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 January 2011

Note: David in DC listed this discussion at WT:WOP. JJB 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per (cough) Ryoung122's original nom, and per above and SNOW. Name appears in List of German supercentenarians, which can become a minibio if sources ever arise. Only reason I didn't nom this one is that it wasn't listed as a WP:WOP article. Only reason it passed last time is that uninvolved editors were swayed by defenses by two self-ID'd Yahoo WOP members, one its creator, who are now long gone. JJB 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete I see no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. Canadian Paul 22:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator made the following comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of last surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, which appears intended for this page instead: JJB 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Redirecting her to the people section on List of German supercentenarians doesn't make sense because only verified supercentenarians can remain there (that have been the oldest in Germany for a period of time). --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 18 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} 21:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of last surviving veterans of the Napoleonic Wars[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because this list is equivalent to List of last living war veterans#Napoleonic Wars. Sources aren't cited for every person. There is no need to make an individual list for the 3rd time (the list is also present here on this article Last European veterans by war#Napoleonic_Wars) Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. The multiplicity of longevity lists and articles is an ongoing problem. Pruning this particular manifestation should not be controversial. If the stand-alone list has been deleted and an equivalent is included in another list, one wonders why this one was created at all. But multiple lists with the same people on them seems endemic in the longevity garden David in DC (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: David in DC listed this discussion at WT:WOP. JJB 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete per above, this being a great illustration of the type of redundancy I have been working against. The only advantage is the tabular format and indication of vacant positions, which is nominal. Without reviewing the entire list, my spot-checking of a couple lines didn't reveal anything not present in the other two versions (one of which could be made a "please see" reference to the other). If there is in fact anything not already redundant, merge it (ditto if consensus suggests tabular form is worth saving, to which I say no). Note, the issue is not sourcing, which is passable, but (1) the questionability of whether such a list has actually been compiled anywhere besides WP (which I admit is possible but probably not sufficiently so to create new-article notability), and (2) the very limited nature of such a "topic" being more appropriate to inclusion in a larger article. Do not redirect as this is not a search target in any way. Perhaps the other two articles could be merged. JJB 22:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to the section. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems only barely notable 200 years ago, and less so now. The list is arbitrary in its inclusion of individuals. What defines the age requirement or point in time to be included? — fcsuper^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )}— 06:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting her to the people section on List of German supercentenarians doesn't make sense because only verified supercentenarians can remain there (that have been the oldest in Germany for a period of time). --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, this comment appears to belong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margarethe Zinndorf (2nd nomination), to which I am copying it. JJB 15:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, seems both redundant and trivial. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of last living war veterans#Napoleonic Wars: per nom, the list seems redundant. However, I do think that there is value in having a redirect, unlike JJB, as there is a slim possibility this redirect could be useful. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all those lists are really unnecessary: top 10 sandwiches eaten in space, shortest presidents in the Americas, fastest cars driven over the Danube. Get rid of them all. Including this one. I know some research has been done here but it is really not for a decent encyclopedia Benqish (talk) 15:21, 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.