The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry_Chamberlain[edit]

Kerry_Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines for academics.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —NZ forever (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GS cites give h index of 24. This is enough to meet WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Really, is that enough these days? And, does this h index rule vary between the disciplines? Those science types co-author like rabbits, so what would be of major impact in the humanities isn't necessarily the case here. Also, other than this I can't find significant coverage. If we keep it, what is to be done to meet WP:BLP? I've tried to signal that it needs to be fleshed out in the past but there have been no takers. NZ forever (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sufficiently well published and cited academic and he was one of the founding members and is Chairman of the International Society of Critical Health Psychology which is now referenced. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Seems no more notable than any number of University professors. Would change to keep if notability can be adequately established in the article, after 4 and a half years that still has not been done. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 (which explicitly includes academics in its remit): "The person has ... played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Evidence: reviews of co-authored book Qualitative Health Psychology: theories and methods in Canadian Psychology], Journal of Health Psychology, European Journal of Public Health, Journal of Advanced Nursing. Presumably the place to debate or consider changing the wording of that particular criterion would be WT:BIO rather than here. Qwfp (talk)
• Comment. How odd that the deletes are from New Zealand. Looks like a case of Matthew 13:57. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Matthew 13:57 at BibleGateway.com Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • A more likely (and charitable) explanation is: people seeing this because of deletion sorting/NZ and being less familiar with academic deletion debates. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That certainly could be the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. He's had a reasonable amount of attention in the NZ press: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. And he was a keynote speaker at the NZ Psychological Society Annual Meeting 2009. But more convincing to me (because it's less local) are the Google scholar citation counts: he's one of the world's most-cited scholars in melatonin jet-lag research, and also well-cited (though not quite as much as the top researchers) in psychological well-being. That's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - have to agree with David Eppstein.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Haiti[edit]

Crime in Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Haiti until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I'm finding plenty of reliable sources on the topic and Haiti is notable, in part, for its high crime rate.[6] Deserves an article.—RJH (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources provides the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Paraguay[edit]

Crime in Paraguay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Paraguay until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that's what you meant to say... Mandsford 03:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Location (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Calliopejen1 says it all, one source is reason for improvement and not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are similar article on wiki Someone65 (talk) 13:28, 26 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) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Mauritania[edit]

Crime in Mauritania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Mauritania until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - source provides the notability needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Theres similar articles on wiki Someone65 (talk) 13:29, 26 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) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Benin[edit]

Crime in Benin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect whatever information is verifiable to Benin until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Calliopejen 1, one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per refs Someone65 (talk) 13:29, 26 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) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in Cape Verde[edit]

Crime in Cape Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unencyclopedic article derived from a single source. Information is otherwise unverifiable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kugao (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Cape Verde until enough information on the subject warrants a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. Should not be merged to main country article - no FAs on countries have sections on crime in them. I'm not sure what you mean by "otherwise unverifiable"--it is perfectly verifiable against the source cited (whose reliability you have not challenged). Perfectly encyclopedic topic - see Crime in the United States for an example of a better article about crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Calliopejen 1, one source is a reason for improvement, not deletion. once again...:)--BabbaQ (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A legitimate and notable subject. The sourcing should be improved.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 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) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray E. Bornert II[edit]

Ray E. Bornert II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod and prod2 tags removed by author and subject of article. Other than a small piece in Wired from several years back, no other coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability of subject. WinHoldEm has also been nominated for deletion.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. andy (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable Bornert is very notable in the online poker world since 2003-2004. Go here: forumserver.twoplustwo.com search for either 'Bornert' 'Ray Bornert' or 'Winholdem' ... keep in mind the current db does not include the archives before 2007 but you can do the same searches on the archive site. In that world Winholdem and Bornert are synonymous since 2004. --Riitoken (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:Speedy_keep and WP:Reliable sources, as your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with both. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should have used notable which was the point of the reply. --Riitoken (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's be clear here: you are Ray Bornert and have a significant conflict of interest in this article and this debate. WP:COI and WP:HONESTY indicate that you should declare this. andy (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no COI here. If you think any of my edits do not adhere to WP:NPOV then contest the edits but please do not falsely accuse me. --Riitoken (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No useful Google News hits. Google search hits are all forums/wikis/social networks. Both from searching the article title and simpler "Ray Bornert". Lacks significant coverage from multiple, reliable sources. Massive COI/self-promotion issues as well. » scoops “5x5„ 02:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, very little evidence of notability and lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. High likelihood of WP:COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:57, 20 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) 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Help I just got my ass handed to me in a bag in the Risk (clone) debate for not being able to find solid sources. I've read the sources in the Bornert article and it strikes me that there are 3 notable publishers of content that mention Bornert and/or his software - MSNBC, Wired magazine, The Mail on Sunday (large U.K. paper). Help me understand why these do not qualify as valid sources that reference Bornert. And don't just post some flippant WP:* ref. please explain specifically why these sources (which were not written by Borner) are unacceptable for Wikipedia. --Riitoken (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For goodness sake stop it! You know full well what's wrong with these sources because it was explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinHoldEm in which you are a participant. These are the same sources as used in WinHoldEm and they have even less value in Ray E. Bornert II - only the Wired article is in any way a suitable source, the others, as you were told at the other afd "deal with the phenomenon of bots in general and give only trivial mentions to the article subject". You are already on a final warning for gaming the system and in particular your disruptive contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone) so I strongly suggest you participate properly in this debate, if you have anything of value to say. andy (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, chill dude. I'm just trying to learn here. Is there a Wikipedia rule that demands that sources may only be used in a single article? yes/no? I was not aware of any such rule. Those 3 sources seemed entirely appropriate for the subject matter of all 3 articles. All 3 sources mention Bornert so that seems perfectly fine in an article about him. All 3 sources mention Winholdem and so that seems fine for an article about it. All 3 sources deal with the subject of 'Computer Poker Players' and so that seems fine for an article with the title 'Computer Poker Players'. So I ask you what exactly is your problem here dude? And for the record, I am not the author of any of these 3 Wikipedia articles. You've been riding me for the past week in the Risk (clone) debate. STOP HARRASSING ME!! --Riitoken (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: First off, asking you to look at a link (such as WP:RS or WP:GNG) is not "flippant." These links discuss the appropriate guidelines in quite a bit of detail, far more detail than is appropriate to repeat in this AfD. What you're asking, in effect, is for us to retype the information found in those guidelines here to save you the trouble of clicking on those links. That being said, WP:GNG is the General Notability Guideline, and what it says is that articles need multiple, independent, third-party, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail." Mentioning a subject is not enough. Quoting the subject in an article about something else entirely is not enough. A sentence or two about where the guy went to school is not enough.  Ravenswing  14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Only the Wired article discusses the subject at all, and not in particularly indepth detail; the degree to which it constitutes "significant detail" per WP:GNG is shaky. In any event, multiple such sources are required, and do not appear. Strong evidence exists that Riitoken = Bornert, bringing WP:COI into the mix.  Ravenswing  14:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The Wired article is the only source of substance. This is simply not enough. -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the articles are primarily about pokerbots - specifically Winholdem. Bornert is a the necessary human element because a writer cannot interview a piece of software; so yes the articles are not about Bornert specifically from a Biographical pov. So maybe the citations do no belong in the Bornert living bio article. But I'll be damned if they don't belong in both WinHoldEm and Computer_poker_players articles. All I did was read the article to see if Bornert was mentioned. I had assumed that was enough for the WP living bio. standards (maybe I was wrong). I'm not a biographer; I just thought the references would be useful to anybody that was. --Riitoken (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep V, N, RS --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the depth of the debate so far and your apparent lack of experience on wikipedia, don't you think that we need a bit more than "V, N, RS"? andy (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This user appears to be reflexively voting "keep" in a variety AFD discussions. And I do mean "vote" instead of "!vote" as the user does nor provide any sort of rationale to support the vote. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming that Katie's comment of "V, N, RS" refers to WP:V WP:N WP:RS ? I'm still learning the voting process (and abbreviations) but it looks like her vote is based her interpretation of those polices. Yes? No? --Riitoken (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'd be a good guess. It's considered poor form, though (however much we all do it from time to time) to merely quote a link; your view doesn't carry as much weight unless you explain, however tersely, what about that policy or guideline supports your position.  Ravenswing  22:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a sockpuppet trying to make some kind of point. I've asked for someone to look into it. - MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already filed an SPI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock of User:Elizabeth Steinberg. - MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to passing the WP:GNG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability for this particular person is not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:20, 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} 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia[edit]

Metapedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dubious notability. Very limited coverage in third-party sources; almost every citation is trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources are not trivial, and much as I wish the site itself didn't exist, that's not the same thing as wanting to delete the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold my nose and keep. Much as I wish we could delete garbage like this from the world in general, it's the sole or main focus of many of the sources used in the article, and they are as far as I can tell reliable. We don't only catalog the nice parts of the world. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep Sources are not trivial. Problems can be with systematic POV because many sources are obviously hostile comments by ideological enemies and article does not include sympathetic sources. Some sources like SPLC are inherently unreliable as sources for facts but can be used as sources for opinions of ideological enemies. --Dezidor (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is nothing in WP:RS requiring that sources be neutral or unbiased. Beyond that, the ultimate measure here is whether the sources attest to the subject's notability. I would say a subject important enough to warrant articles by the Southern Poverty Law Center or provoke speeches on the floor of the Bundestag meet that bar.  Ravenswing  14:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep RS --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ms. Sweetmore is a SPA who's been spamming AfDs with this self-same vote.  Ravenswing  16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient media coverage in several countries to meet notability criterion. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:29, 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 Speedy delete as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Bradshaw[edit]

Ronald Bradshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article could be a complete hoax; no other sources corroborate the information that he had significant roles in any of the films mentioned. Furthermore, as IP who nominated it for speedy noted, the actor is not listed on IMDB. I declined the speedy and listed it here to gain consensus before possible deletion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:37, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planetbravo[edit]

Planetbravo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This company doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- notability for this company is not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing anything that fulfills WP:CORP notability in terms of 3rd-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:34, 26 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) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Living Essential Oils[edit]

Young Living Essential Oils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No third party reliable sources for this MLM company. The article's only references are the company's own website and a listing on a local United Way site as a partner (plus one site with safety information that doesn't appear to refer to this company specifically).

Only 11 news articles in Google; 5 are relevant: 4 are ads or promotional in nature, and one is a blog that says a snowboarder uses their lip balm. I saw essentially no reliable sources in the first five pages of Google search results, with the only possible exception being a QuackWatch article examining the company's claims. In other words, no reliable sources to confer notability. Zachlipton (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:CORP, sources do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and WP:CORP. Should have been deleted along with D. Gary Young, Gary young president of young living, Gary Young (businessman), and Ningxia red. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete said the Dalek (per Ukexpat). Phearson (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. As much as I'd like this article to be deleted, salted and then salted again, there are mentions in scholarly material and mentions in books. A survey indicates they lack a depth of coverage and are often dubious or heavily dusted with promotion/COI. However, there are enough that there's a possibility that WP:GNG could be met with A Few Good Articles. tedder (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Nice find with this research. However, I am rather skeptical of the reliability and substancialness of some of these sources. Looking through the scholarly materials, I see some references to the company as a supplier of oils for experiments, but I don't really see discussion of this company beyond that in the articles. I don't think saying "we obtained product X from Young Living" is substantial coverage within the meaning of the GNG. The other "scholarly articles" appear to be spam that has worked its way into Google Scholar. As for the books, they certainly have more substantial coverage, but I'm concerned about their reliability. Many seem to involve personal anecdotes ("I bought these oils from Young Living"). As for the others, it's hard to tell how accepted they are: certainly not by the scientific community, but perhaps by the homeopathic community? Certainly, I and many of us have a POV here as you acknowledge (though I suspect that if this article remained on Wikipedia, it would result in a net loss to the company's reputation compared to if it was just deleted), but I fully acknowledge the article should be kept if it meets the guidelines. I just don't think the sources are really there to cover this subject in a neutral encyclopedic manner. The use of multi-level-marketing also complicates the search for sources, as it creates great incentives for people to promote the company regardless of its merit. Zachlipton (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per weak refs Someone65 (talk) 13:31, 26 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) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOCA United[edit]

BOCA United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Youth amateur soccer team; though external links verify the club's existence I can find no evidence that it meets notability inclusion requirements. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable soccer club.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable club. GiantSnowman 23:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, amateur club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable club. --Carioca (talk) 21:09, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malati Dasi[edit]

Malati Dasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

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

The only assertion of notability is a link to Disciplining: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. This book is not, in fact, published by Columbia University Press, it is an automatically generated eBook from Philip M. Parker. I believe this would disqualify it as a reliable source in and of itself, but an examination of the source reveals a a "WP" tag following the single sentence biography. As such, this citation is merely a reference to Wikipedia itself! Wikipedia is not a reliable source and cannot confer notability by itself.

In other words, the only citation is one sentence in an eBook that was automatically generated from Wikipedia and consists solely of quotations.

Furthermore, no news links, few web references, none from reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Thanks for poining out my mistake, Zachlipton. Mea culpa, I did not quite fix the citation template for the other WP:RS after Gaura79 removed the unreliable source Disciplining: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. It is fixed now, plus other WP:RSs are added. Admittedly, there is not much material for a start, but it is WP:RSourced now and WP:Notable enough, given that the person in question is the first female leader of a major international Hindu/Vaishnava denomination. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's concern has been adequately addressed. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you care to explain why you think that? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There're many independent, reliable sources in the article now. She's notable as the first female Hare Krishna religious leader and also as a member of the Radha Krsna Temple band. In 1969-1970 they recorded with George Harrison two hit singles Hare Krishna Mantra (#12 in UK Singles Chart and #1 in Germany) and Govinda (#23 in UK Singles Chart). Gaura79 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invision Power Board[edit]

Invision Power Board (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs sources, but is easily one of the most popular bulletin board software suites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we keep it without sources? If it's so popular, where are the sources? Merrill Stubing (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per OhNoItsJamie. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is notable. Widely used and well known software. Marokwitz (talk) 11:01, 26 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. No consensus for deletion, so redirect/merge discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital amnesia[edit]

Digital amnesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete: An essay with some references, vast majority of which is about the concept of digital obsolescence, others just use the term in a flashy way, and many of them have different things in mind. (For example, this arbitrarily added ref discusses the issue of internet links to scientific articles that went dead ("link rot").)

There is no references which actually introduce the concept in an encyclopedic/systematic way. Lorem Ip (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? Where have you looked? It cannot have been the several places (e.g. ISBN 9781845447335 pp. 306) that throw up reports of the New Zealand government's throwing some NZD24 millions at the problem in 2004. Or the Australians thinking along the same lines. So where did you look? Uncle G (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the article and my nomination? Citing from the "Australians thinking along the same lines" : But problems arise when reports are removed from the web or relocated to a new website...The Australian Library and Information Services seminar, “Digital Amnesia”, will address issues relating to the access and management of government publications online I.e., they use this flashy word for what has long been known under the ugly term of link rot (the problem even for wikipedia's citage). Lorem Ip (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither the article nor your nomination say where you looked. I notice that you, even when directly asked, don't say where you looked. Is that because you did not look for references that introduce the concept? If not, then where did you look? You didn't read the whole of the article pointed to, by the way. It's not all about linkrot. Read it carefully, all of the way through, rather than just the bits near the part where a WWW browser's find facility finds the (two) words. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read it all, both two small pagess. From page two: The loss of old material seems to occur most often where a website has gone through an upgrade, change of staff or change of management, or when a significant project and its attendant publications have come to an end. - Which is about possible causes of what? Link rot again. If I miss something besides variouss panic and political babble, please cite. Also, I don't understand your demeaning tone. I don't have to report my reading habits to you. On the contrary, if you have something to cite about "digital amnesia" which is something other than digital obsolescence, please put in into the article, I will delete or tag various dubious statements, and we will need not to carry on this pointless bickering about who read what and how much. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Uncle G: Author Caroline Auty uses the phrase "digital amnesia" exactly once in the book you linked to, Politics and government in the age of the internet, Volume 57, page 306. Auty puts the term in scare quotes to indicate that it is either 1) a joke, 2) an unusual construction, 3) a quote from someone else, or 4) she is not using the term like others use it. Her use is not a definitive one—it is a passing one of no importance. What the New Zealand government spent a bunch of money on was a "trusted digital repository". The one instance on page 306 is the only instance of the word "amnesia" in Auty's publication. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to digital obsolescence: I've never heard the term used myself, and a check in google Scholar shows why--it is almost exclusively an Australian/New Zealand idiom. The concept is real enough, and is known usually as digital obsolescence, though I've seen other names. If there is any unique content here it can be merged, but two phrases for the same thing do not equal two articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See article history; I did so, but I feared the battle with the essay's owner, so I self-reverted and brought it here. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're wasting everyone's time with a deletion discussion where deletion isn't the desired outcome in the first place, and the ordinary editorial action that you took wasn't even disputed? Good grief! AFD, one of the highest-traffic areas of the project, has enough daily traffic with cases where deletion is actually wanted, without manufactured non-deletion cases like this. Don't waste people's time like this. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am asking you again: did you read my nomination? I posted it for deletion because the article speaks NOT about the things in the liberally listed references. As for "not even disputed", thank you very much; in my short time I have run into a surprisingly large number of people who actively edit a certain article and quickly revert your edits with the sole edit comment "no consensus", so I headed straight to "consensus". You say "dont' waste people's time". I don't see many people frequenting this page here. Or did you mean my time is somehow less valuable than yours? Lorem Ip (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Digital Dark Age. The great majority of cites do not have a direct reference to "digital amnesia", and at least one which does uses it in an ironic way. This article is clearly made up out of one Australian seminar and a whole lot of original research. Article sources:

• http://www.uic.edu/classes/comm/comm200am/teamprojects/MemoryTechnologies/Information_Overload.htm – Unreliable source, simple class notes
• http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/1155/The_great_digital_information_disappearing_act.html – Jokingly refers to "digital amnesia"
• http://www.librarylaws.org/taxonomy/term/41 – Link not working for me
• "Businesses Worry About Long-Term Data Losses" – No mention of topic phrase
• http://www.chass.org.au/papers/PAP20050718TG.php – Toss Gascoigne's address, "Digital amnesia: the challenges of government online"
• http://conferences.alia.org.au/seminars/digital.amnesia2005/ – Announcement of above, and links to other presentations at the ALIA conference
• http://www.sdsc.edu/about/director/pubs/communications200812-DataDeluge.pdf – PDF does not have the word "amnesia" in it
• http://www.aiim.org/Infonomics/IssueView.aspx?ID=47 – No text on webpage page
• http://www.physorg.com/news144343006.html – No mention of topic phrase
• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/21/tech/main537308.shtml – No mention of topic phrase
• http://blog.longnow.org/category/digital-dark-age/ – Blog, unverifiable, no mention of topic phrase
• http://www.lostmag.com/issue3/memory.php – No mention of topic phrase
• http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/ – Generic main page with no direct relevance to topic, no mention of topic phrase, no word "amnesia" found in searching the site.

This article is an unneeded neologism fork of Digital Dark Age. What was wrong with that term? Move all the best bits over there. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to digital obsolescence, which is a short article on exactly this topic by a less obscure name. The Digital Dark Age article is more about a particle name and concept, rather than the generic problem. Maybe merge it, too. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a better article to merge to—good suggestion. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per last AfD. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:37, 26 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) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Two Cities[edit]

Battle of Two Cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete: fails WP:Notability and, despite a promise to expand when the prod tag was removed, that hasn't happened; no sources provided; dubious provenance; adds no value to cricket project --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. Fails WP:V. --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear notable. --Roisterer (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Johnlp (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I PRODed it back in December because I considered it non-notable as it is not colloquially a major cricket match, which is of no historical importance. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:25, 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 without prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a brief mention at Mohamed Bouazizior some other appropriate article. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Bouterfif[edit]

Mohsen Bouterfif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete Do we really need an article for every supposed copycat of Mohamed Bouazizi? Do self immolations get a free pass from WP:BLP1E concerns? This article, in its current form, contains exactly ONE sentence about this person. The rest of it refers to Bouazizi, the path of the Tunisian president and family, and other copycat incidents. There's nothing to work with here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And you assume there will be nothing in the future as more details evolve? That is what the ((Expert-subject)) is for. I really can not understand why you guys seem to enjoy AfD-ing current event aticles. This man is Algerian, as opposed to Boazizi who was Tunisian. That's like AfD-ing Vytautas Vičiulis of Lithuania because he was a copycat incident for Liviu Cornel Babeș's self-immolation in Romania and both were protesting their respective country's communist govenrment. They both have different governments and different grievances and reasons, just because it's a copycat incident does not mean it's exactly the same thing as the first incident (if that were the case we would all have already removed the individual articles on the U.S. school shootings). The Algerian riots have started long before Bouazizi died. And again can we please at least wait until we can actually determine if it deserves to be kept? Preferably after the incidents, the most you can get out of these lightning AfD's is that multiple instances of the article will be created and deleted again and again. Sorry, but I do believe these nominations have all been nothing but disruptive.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok now that sufficient time has passed and there doesn't seem to be any more info forthcoming, I amend my vote. I do strongly suggest not to AfD articles immediately after thay have been created especially in something that just happened. During this period it is still unclear whether or not it is notable especially since it is given quite significant news coverage. Even if this was a copycat, they are two different countries with different reasons, and two different instances of unrest before both their self-immolations. All foreign countries may look alike to you there, but they aren't. Putting an AfD tag on it is, to put it lightly, highly disruptive, as the AfD tag is very prominent. Like what happened when someone AfD'd Mohamed Bouazizi. Let the events that follow itself make the decision, an AfD discussion is redundant and crystal-ballish.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• unsure the article in its current state doesnt consitute much to warrant a separete article, HOWEVER the possibility exists because of notability. he was the FIRST copycat afterall.(Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
• Delete - most high-profile self-immolations are followed by numerous copycats. They are non-notable unless they spark something new and have consequences. So far nobody demonstrated that this incident is any different from other copycats. A simple mention in Mohamed Bouazizi would suffice. Renata (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - This article and other copy-cat articles shoudl be merged into a new article about self-immolations in the Arab world. Perhaps in an article entitled List of 2011 self-immolations. This article] from two days ago puts the number of self-immolations at 10, and there was another one in Saudi Arabia reported today. The Mohsen Bouterfif article is well written and well sourced and it is only 91 words of text, so it would be an excellent start to a list. I know that some would argue that the List_of_political_self-immolations is sufficient, but there's more than 40 entries on that page there's no accompanying commentary explaining how certain self-immolations are connected politically. David Straub (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of what a merged article could look like: Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident.David Straub (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait: I doubt Mr. Bouterfif needs a separate article - he's neither the first to do this in Algeria this year nor the first to die of it - but that depends on the response to his death (which only seems to have happened today) over the next week or two. - EmeutesAlgerie (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been more than a week since he died. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the first report of his death was denied the next day. - EmeutesAlgerie (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • • The article notes his death as being 16 January 2011. If that's wrong, correct it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Renata. Diego Grez (talk) 02:53, 26 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) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel ebooks[edit]

Diesel ebooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

After a quick search, I can't really find any good references for this company other than their website. I feel, however, that based on the rather large (and perhaps erm, true?) claims this article makes, that it doesn't qualify for CSD A7. Levinge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only press seems to be a few press releases, and even those aren't widely distributed. A few mentions in non-reliable sources, but nothing significant, and really no RS coverage that I can dig up. I can't find anything to back their claim, nor do I really understand what an "independent" eBook store is anyway. Zachlipton (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless good referencing appears. I think they mean they belong to one person, and are not a big company like B & N and Amazon. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 06:28, 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) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Nevers (baseball)[edit]

Tom Nevers (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. There are a ton of players who starred in amateur/high school sports, so that does not inherently make him notable. There are a ton of first rounders who never reach the big leagues, so he isn't notable because he was a first round pick either. He played 13 years in the minor leagues but did not post numbers that would merit an article. The only thing I did notice was he was drafted by the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins - does being drafted by a hockey team merit an article? Alex (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Was drafted at number 100 in the 1989 NHL Entry Draft, which doesn't make him inherently notable either, and I could find no proof he ever played in the NHL or other significant coverage so fails WP:GNG as well. Ravendrop (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 26 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 county roads in Volusia County, Florida. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida)[edit]

County Road 4011 (Volusia County, Florida) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not meet USRD notability guidelines or WP:GNG as a standalone article. Suggest merge into List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida. Admrboltz (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Per nom. Dough4872 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as I fully endorse the nomination rationale (a.k.a. "per nom"). Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom - unlike the roads with significant bridges, even this inclusionist isn't sure this one deserves its own article. Might have some historical notability, but that would be as Riverside Drive (Daytona Beach), not CR 4011. Are the road's former routes (US-1, ODH) enough to make it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A former section of US Highway 1, former section of Dixie Highway, current section of Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, which does meet USRD notability as a standalone article Gamweb (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article still needs secondary sources. All sources listed are primary. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • North of Ormond Beach, the local street name is still "Old Dixie Highway." Would you like me to take a photo of it for you? Gamweb (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Photos are not reliable sources. If the road was part of the Dixie Highway, then maybe that is a better target for merger. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would prefer to see it merged to Ormond Scenic Loop and Trail, which does not exist yet. Perhaps it can be redirected to the County List page temporarily until the Loop page is created. Gamweb (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, thats what I originally suggested. I am not asking for the article to be deleted, but to be merged into the list. If after someone creates the trail's page, then we can copy the data from the page history / list into the new trail article. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom as long as the article info is retained there. And why is this listed as an AfD and not a merge request? — AjaxSmack 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous merger and prod requests are quickly reverted by others, and this is a more enforceable venue. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous "merge" wasn't. It was a unilateral delete and redirect. — AjaxSmack 17:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or move to new name as suggested above, as long as there is an editor willing to work on it, which it looks like there is. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested and willing to work on an article about the block-long street that runs past my apartment. That is not a valid reason to keep (or create) and article that does not meet WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 02:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are you so sure this road is not notable? FieldMarine (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I don't see any coverage in reliable sources beyond the fact that this road is on a map. Imzadi 1979 → 05:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you basing your opinion there is not sufficient reliable sources from just Internet search? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm not. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do access all the non-digitized works on the history of Volusia to be sure there are not sufficient reliable sources? FieldMarine (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't work that way. If you want to keep the article you must show that significant coverage in reliable published sources exists. (I think the above statement is a logical extension of WP:BURDEN.) -- Donald Albury 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. --Rschen7754 21:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. -- Donald Albury 10:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Thorpe[edit]

Tracy Thorpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable 30-year-old minor league baseball pitcher with a 32-47 record and a 4.56 ERA. It is highly unlikely he is ever going to reach the major leagues , or affiliated professional baseball again, for that matter. Alex (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The second guideline of the baseball notability guidelines: "Have appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level national league." Having played in the top professional leagues of both Mexico and Venezuela, I feel he qualifies. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Kinston eagle. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I will note that I do not believe the Mexican League qualifies as a top level league since its absorption into the MiLB hierarchy, the LVBP certainly does, so Thorpe's notable. -Dewelar (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a strange case. Mexican League teams don't have any formal affiliation with individual MLB clubs, and that degree of autonomy is IMO enough to set it apart as an independent league for the purposes of the intent of the "top-level foreign league" classification. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed that it's a bit nebulous. The Mexican League is pretty much the only league that has this kind of relationship with MLB/MiLB (the closest might be something like the DSL, or the various Latin American winter leagues). I'm open to arguments that La Liga counts, but my gut instinct says no. -Dewelar (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For whatever it's worth, I wrote the initial draft of that clause in WP:WPBB/N, and I definitely considered the Mexican League (just to be clear, we're talking about the LMB here) to be qualifying at that time. Its existence as a notable national league precedes its involvement in any capacity with MLB by about 40 years. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not disagree that the LMB would have qualified before its association with MLB. However, once it became associated with MLB, its status was diminished to that of a minor league, and IMO anyone who played in it from that point forward would no longer have presumed notability conferred upon them. -Dewelar (talk) 20:18, 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. for a merge the material to be merged must be reliably sourced as otherwise this is original research. If proper (ie. non blig sourcing) can be found then I'll happily undelete for a merge but until then the unsourced = delete argument current has the weight of policy behind it Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish community chernigov"[edit]

"Jewish community chernigov" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

NOTE This article has now been moved to Jewish community at Chernigov. If the result is "delete" then please delete that article, as well as the redirect at "Jewish community chernigov". JamesBWatson (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about a "community" as opposed to an actual town or religion. I don't see anything overly notable and this congregation in themselves, but perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps it should've been tagged for CSD, but I didn't feel that any criteria indefinitely applied. Levinge (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability. Could even be speedy deletion (CSD A7). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable. Only source given is a blog. Safiel (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge to Chernihiv. Chernigov is an alternate spelling of Chernihiv, which currently has an article. Evidently, there is notable Jewish history with that town, but certainly not to the point of requiring a separate article. Any relevant, sourced information about this Jewish community should be added there. However, the source currently given, being a blog, is unacceptable. Safiel (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Safiel "Delete and Merge" cannot be done technically, what you mean to say is "Merge and Redirect" -- thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to either Chernihiv, as per User:Safiel, or to History of the Jews in Ukraine#Jewish communities. Let's not lose the raw data, it does need spell-check though. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Chernihiv.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability.--俄国 (talk) 14:40, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Malik Shabazz. cab (call) 00:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.C.[edit]

L.A.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is about a rap musician with no independent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and a likely autobiography. As far as I can tell, this is an unsigned artist. The content of this article bears a striking resemblance bio on his web site. Whpq (talk) 18:30, 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. per policy the correct way to counter deletion arguments based on lack of sourcing is to provide some. This doesn't appear to have happened so the delete arguments whilenumerically less are actually the only policy based arguments put forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FastCode[edit]

FastCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

I cannot find any coverage of this contest to indicate that it meets the general notability guideline can be met. (PROD was was contested). SmartSE (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Perhaps the article should be clarified (or perhaps you're just misreading it) but it's not the contest that's important. It's not "covered" because only the participants in the contest actually care about the competition itself. The improved code that comes out of it, on the other hand, is quite significant and is well-known in the Delphi community. There's no good reason to delete this article just because one minor detail doesn't have much "coverage" in blogs or news. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article says FastCode is the contest - is this true? IOW, the thing you refer to as "one minor detail" is the subject of the entire article, right? I may have mangled this when I removed the copyrighted text, but it sure seemed to say this all along. If FastCode is well known in the Delphi community, then it should be pretty easy to find reliable sources to help satisfy the general notability guidelines, which are required for a subject to be a stand-alone article. Do such sources exist? If so, please add them to the article or let me know about them so I can do it. If not, then what you mean by "well-known" is not the same as notability as we talk about it on wikipedia, and we should delete this article. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the article to clarify that FastCode is a programming project implemented as a contest. And there are five sources in the article so far, three of them from official Embarcadero sources. So can we drop the "no reliable sources" nonsense already? 69.46.35.146 (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three are self-published and the other is not independent and they are therefore not what we consider to be "reliable" as WP:RS explains. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because the articles happen to be found in blogs doesn't mean they're automatically to be discounted as "self-published". They're not just any old person's blog rambling about whatever; those are links from official technical blogs from top Delphi team members, hosted by Embarcadero, the owner of Delphi. That's about as official as it gets for a major software product that's sold over the Internet. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is not that they're blogs - I think those blogs would be fine for certain kinds of verification, etc. But most of them are not independent sources. We need sources from unaffiliated organizations in order to establish notability. The entire premise of this discussion is the general notability guidelines; it would be helpful to read them for anyone who wishes to participate here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of something technical and used by Embarcadero (even though it's run by third party programmers) is that most articles about it will be by the people who wrote it - they know the most, after all! - or Embarcadero, since they make Delphi. While I agree with the motive behind the guidelines is good, in this case it's counter-productive and serves to exclude the most informative content.

(You can see this easily by looking at similar pages - take [7] or [8] for example. Most of those pages' references don't qualify by those standards, yet anyone who knows about either of the products would agree (a) they're notable and (b) they're good sources.)

I'm not arguing the motive; just pointing out it's counter-productive, circular, and serves to remove information from Wikipedia. I'm sure you don't want that.

Btw, I'm a neutral third party - a normal Delphi programmer, just one well aware of how useful FastCode has been. Thought I'd put in my two cents since the moderators seem to not move in Delphi circles.

TL;DR Argument is counterproductive in this specific case, it's a guideline & look at similar articles; you should add sources that know most about the topic.

06:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)203.45.22.138 (talk) David M

We seem to be talking past each other. I did not say to remove the blogs. Nobody is removing those sources, are they? I am just saying that they don't establish notability. What "moderators" are you talking about? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe by "moderators" he means "people who are always trying to delete things based on strict adherence to their rigid interpretation of the letter of the law, without any actual domain knowledge for the subject at hand, who persist in wilfully ignoring the contributions of any experts who have domain knowledge as long as it doesn't agree with their preconceived viewpoints." 71.112.196.128 (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"rigid interpretation of the letter of the law" - you mean the desire for independent sources? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But most of them are not independent sources." Can you clarify for me what is an independent source in this case? If you mean having nothing to do with Delphi at all, then no, there can't be any "independent" sources. But the article isn't about Delphi. All the references I see are from people that were not involved in the FastCode project. To me that makes them "independent sources." Blwhite (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this one for example: Steve Trefethen worked on incorporating Fastcode stuff into Delphi 2007. The embarcadero.com blogs are obviously affiliated with a company that directly benefits from Fastcode, but many of those do not even significantly cover Fastcode, so they can't be used to satisfy the concerns raised in this afd anyway. Can you point to a particular blog reference in the article that you feel is unaffiliated, significantly covers Fastcode itself, and is reliable? The gerixsoft.com reference has potential, but see WP:SELFPUBLISH. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm not being clear or I don't understand what 'independent' means. Steve was not part of the FastCode group.

FC was/is a community contribution. Delphi employees generally stayed out of it. They did offer some prizes for some of the later competitions. After the competition was complete, Steve was involved in incorporating a few of the results into Delphi. So he was clearly part of the group that benefited from the work by FastCode. But all 2 million Delphi users in the world are in that group. It would be like not being able to write about Office because you've used it, you're not independent. Clearly I'm not grasping where the boundary is.Blwhite (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"grasping where the boundary is" - yeah, I think it's debatable. I was claiming that this is not really unaffiliated because he is, in a sense, using FastCode's advantages as a way of explaining why his product and work, Delphi 2007, is better. To use your Office example, rather than just a user, consider someone who wrote about how he helped people install and configure Office as a 3rd party consultant and how great Office was; I wouldn't consider this to be an entirely unaffiliated party. Also, wp:SELFPUBLISH. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Embarcadero Delphi, which mentions FastCode. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that that's probably the best solution. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Or move to FastMM, with a section there about Fastcode? I think this article pretty solidly demonstrates the notability of FastMM. Would folks say that FastCode is significant primarily because of FastMM? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a valid question. I would guess 'no'. I like the way the article sums it up. "FastCode is unique among contributions to commercial compiler runtime libraries for its community-driven and open source nature." I don't know everything about every OS project, but this one seems unique to me in the contributions, of which FastMM was the largest, that it has made to thousands of people using Delphi.Blwhite (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm withdrawing my !vote, because of the The Delphi Magazine articles. I haven't read them, but if the rumors are true they discuss Fastcode for multiple pages, so the subject likely satisfies wp:GNG. I don't believe any of the other sources in the article do much to help establish that it satisfies wp:GNG, however. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - From what I can gather, it is a coding project at sourceforge structured as a competition. But regardless, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. All I am able to find are blogs and forum posts. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the decision to delete this article is based on ignorance and is being made arbitrarily. As far as I can tell, the decision to delete this article is being made by one person without any real subject matter knowledge. On the other hand, a number of people who are and were involved in FastCode are pointing out it's legitimacy. It is difficult to understand why the person with no subject matter expertise gets the final say over those with the subject matter expertise. I myself was an Embarcadero employee and can testify personally to the significance and value of the FastCode project. It is not merely a "contest", but a community of developers who use competition to provide significant improvements to a significant commercial project. There are any number of similar Wikipedia articles about similar open source projects and organizations. NickHodges — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickHodges (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all anyone is saying is that the article needs references to significant coverage in reliable, independent (unaffiliated) sources. I couldn't really find any, and I'm assuming SmartSE and Whpq couldn't either. You can testify to its significance, but Wikipedia in a sense only cares about verifiability, it does not care about the credentials of its editors. "There are any number of similar Wikipedia articles about similar open source projects and organizations." - please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't buy the Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. If one points to a clearly legitimate article on Wikipedia, that is a valid argument for keeping a similar page. If it isn't, well, then the decision to remove a page can be utterly arbitrary. If every character in Grey's Anatomy has a page, then it seems perfectly legitimate to have a page for every character in The Office. How could one argue otherwise? NickHodges (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"How could one argue otherwise?" I'm advocating arguing from policies and guidelines, or even, to a lesser extent of course, from past deletion discussions. Those are not arbitrary, because tons of discussion goes into them. "article x" is what is arbitrary, because no discussion necessarily went in to whether or not to create an article for Derek Shepherd, for example. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is arbitrary is the existence of other pages that are allowed to remain. I agree that we should argue from policy. How is the continuing existence of a given page not part of policy? NickHodges (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to nominate those for deletion, also. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, that's not "all anyone is saying." The original contributor has been blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. Which seems a bit harsh, considering he created one page about a free project. It doesn't affect whether the page should stay or go, but it does contribute to the feeling of overreaction here. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about "feeling of overreaction". But that action has nothing to do with this deletion discussion. When I said "all anyone is saying" I meant "all anyone is saying here in this deletion discussion". Sorry if that was unclear. Also, the person who created it is not banned from editing, the block notice says "You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization." Just the username was against the username policy. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I believe this article covers an important aspect of programming and is notable Sysrpl (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you believe there is sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable 3rd party sources to establish notability, per wp:GNG? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Since this discussion began, more sources have been added, including a couple of references to independent magazine articles that talk about FastCode. Seems to me that that meets the guidelines for independence and notability. 71.112.196.128 (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There has been some highly targeted, off-wiki canvassing for this discussion. While I think has resulted in some really good work on the article, it may also have had the effect of lots of sympathetic !voters here in this discussion. Since it's not a vote, this should be fine, but I would appreciate it if the closing admin paid especially close attention to theThat's a really good point. But consider; how do you know it is either unique or has had a recognizable effect? Wikipedia insists that everything is verifiable and on not publishing original research, so we would have to find some reliable source, like a scholarly journal merits of the arguments being made and did not rely on !vote count alone to determine consensus. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly does that mean? There have only been two sympathetic !votes cast so far; that hardly constitutes "lots". As one of the principal instigators of this "highly targeted canvassing," I can assure you that the efforts were focused entirely upon coming up with better material for the article, especially sources that would pass review, and not at all on recruiting people to say things on this discussion page. 69.46.35.146 (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  "only been two sympathetic !votes cast" - I think it's at least 3. But anyway, considering that is about half the total number of votes so far, I think my point stands. "I can assure you that the efforts were focused entirely upon coming up with better material for the article..." I don't doubt it at all! I totally assume good faith here – and like I said, the main effect of the off-wiki discussion has been hugely beneficial for the article. I'm quite happy about it. I am not in any way pushing for any kind of sanctions or anything; please don't misunderstand. I didn't mean to imply by using the word "canvass" that it was intentional, I meant to say that it may be having that effect - I probably misspoke here and I apologize. By "targeted", again, I did not mean to imply that the targeting was deliberate to affect the outcome, merely that the conversation was probably almost exclusively viewed by those who are positively disposed toward Fastcode. Again, the word "target" probably didn't help, and I apologize for that as well. I'm only trying to say that due to the possibly uneven exposure that this discussion has received, the closing admin ought to be careful not to just count !votes. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.Blwhite (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article introduces efficient coding techniques. FastCode is not simply a contest. The outcome of this contest is a library which is being used in many commercial projects and products including the Delphi itself. SirGalahad (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether it introduces efficient techniques or is only a contest or not don't have anything to do with whether FastCode meets the general notability guidelines.ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Haven't read the general notability guidelines, but some of the discussion here and in the article indicate that the form of this project is unique and had a "recognizable" effect. I guess such a thing should be notable: unique and recoginzable effect! How much rubbish is written about some celebrities, which isn't deleted even if it's neither unique nor of any real importance (except for the celebrity).--91.37.254.216 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a really good point. But consider; how do you know it is either unique or has had a recognizable effect? Wikipedia insists that everything is verifiable and on not publishing original research, so we would have to find some reliable source, like a scholarly journal or other 3rd-party, reputable publication, that had done this analysis and concluded that FastCode was unique and had a recognizable effect in order to make that statement in the article. And that would satisfy the GNG. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:24, 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) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010 Midwest Blizzard[edit]

December 2010 Midwest Blizzard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Has sources but the lack of size in the article suggests that this wasn't a significant one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm surprised this one isn't expanded further since it was both the largest snowfall in the Twin Cities in a long time and caused the Metrodome collapse. However in Wisconsin it really didn't do much, so if this is rewritten, it should be focused more on the Minnesota impact and be titled as such. As it is though, not an unusual snow event in Wisconsin. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of notability and lasting historical significance. SNaismith (talk) 16:16, 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) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Senate Democrats[edit]

Oregon Senate Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is content fork of articles such as 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly and Oregon State Senate and does not meet WP:ORG because it is not an official organization, unlike, say, the Democratic Party of Oregon. Esprqii (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly#Senate members is a much better presentation of this information. There, the senate democrats have context with the rest of the chamber members—and their terms, geographic district, and committees. —EncMstr (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pointless fork. -- Whpq (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Legislative caucuses are absolutely official organizations in American politics. They determine who can and cannot be a member, determine their own leadership, and are generally recognized by the rules of the legislative body. I will reserve my judgment on the article itself until I have done some more research. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Mmm, but does that make the caucus notable? Is there anything to say about the subject that can't be/hasn't been said in one of the other articles? Are there reliable sources discussing the caucus in "significant detail?"  Ravenswing  15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete— As Esprqii stated, the same information the article has can be found in 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly and Oregon State Senate. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to be notable as a caucus or official entity, and is otherwise a redundant fork of Oregon State Senate and 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly. --Opus 113 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been produced in the course of the discussion and the consensus since then is that they confer notability. Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Fare[edit]

Standard Fare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable band. No significant converage, seems to be passing mentions only. External links are all spam/adverts. — Timneu22 · talk 17:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Timneu22. This appears to be nothing more than a struggling band trying to get some publicity. Apollo (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and can I ask how this didn't get A7ed? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Fare&action=historysubmit&diff=408812431&oldid=408800413. — Timneu22 · talk 10:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it doesn't meet the criteria for A7, which requires "no claim to notability." My internet is too slow to load the the external links so I can't comment on how good of a claim to notability it is. l'aquatique[talk] 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be helpful if editors commenting here could address the sources cited in the article, and why they do or do not meet our guidelines. The only ones with which I am familiar are The Sunday Times and the The New York Times, which have short pieces about the band, which would contribute towards notability but are probably not enough on their own. Are the others enough to get this over the bar? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good place to start when attempting to determine the notability of bands and musicians is generally Allmusic (a bona-fide reliable source), who have a biography of the band alongside a review of their debut album. There are also independent album reviews at The Sunday Times, Drowned in Sound, The Line of Best Fit, musicOMH and Popmatters. Meets WP:MUSIC#1, easily. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 11:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some citations to the article, and I'd be grateful if some of the previous contributors to this AfD would review their !votes in the light of this. Thanks. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The further sources found by Sparklism seal the notability deal. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Sparklism's cites are helpful, but can we please figure out how to work the citations from the "critical acclaim" section into the rest of the article so we can get rid of that section? It's very spammy sounding. l'aquatique[talk] 17:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Surely that's a metter for editing or talk page discussion rather than anything relevant to the decision on whether to keep or delete this article? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merely a comment... l'aquatique[talk] 17:53, 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 Speedy delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC) non-admin closure[reply]

Darth Chess[edit]

Darth Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Purportedly a Star Wars character, however not listed at List of Star Wars characters. Even if this is genuine, the character is not notable enough to warrant an article on its own, i.e. any info should be merged into List of Star Wars characters - of course only if it is not a hoax. And looking at the page creators other edits that seems highly likely. Travelbird (talk) 17:19, 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) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]