< 26 July	28 July >

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

The result was Vacated. Bad faith nomination by indefblocked user.. causa sui (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N entirely. Clearly just a hobby project using Wikipedia as a webhost.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs)

Note Nominator appears to be exhibiting WP:POINTY behavior related to his own page getting deleted. snaphat (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of the nominator's motive, this completely fails WP:PRODUCT. I can't find any information in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merge doesn't need an AFD to effect and there is clearly a consensus this is noteworthy. Further discussion on the article talk can determine whether we go with a standalone or merged content Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres in Erzurum (1895)[edit]

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

It's impossible to keep as an independent article with existing sources. Most of all sources in this article are too old and not secondary soruces. We'd better merge to Hamidian massacres. Takabeg (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Takabeg (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Takabeg (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I don't understand what Wikipedia policy disallows sources that the nominator considers "old", there are plenty of other sources available. The searches listed by the nominator are too narrow, as the use of quotation marks requires that the exact phrase be present. I searched Google Books without quotes with three terms: 1895, massacre and +Erzurum. Here are some possible additional sources for the article, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, The great game of genocide: imperialism, nationalism, and the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians, The Armenian massacres in Ottoman Turkey: a disputed genocide, Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918), and British diplomacy and the Armenian question: from the 1830s to 1914. I am not saying that every one of these sources is of the highest quality; however, as a group, they convince me that the 1895 massacres in this city are notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do sources that you shew above refer to this event ? For example, Fuat Dündar's Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918) (p. 142.) refers to "Sassoun massacre" and "Consul General at Erzurum". But it doesn't refer to "massacre in Erzurum". Takabeg (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't claim that every one of the sources I provided is of the highest quality, but taken as a group, I believe that they show the notability of the events in Erzurum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that there was massacre in Erzrum in 1895. I say that it's difficult to keep as independent article. According to US and British newspapers at the time, we can know the numbers of victims (10,000 victims in Urfa, 5,000 victims in Malatya, 4,000 victims in Arapgir, 3,000 victims in Diyâr-i Bekir, 3,000 victims in Bitlis, 2,000 victims in Erzincan, 2,000 victims in Gürün, 2,000 in Harput, 1,500 victims in Sivas, 1,100 victims in Trabzon, 1,000 victims in Marash etc.). But we don't have specific and enough information about those massacres. In short it's very difficult for us to create articles such as Massacre in Urfa (1895), Massacre in Malatya (1895), Massacre in Arapgir (1895), Massacre in Diyâr-i Bekir (1895), Massacre in Bitlis (1895), Massacre in Erzincan (1895), Massacre in Gürün (1895), Massacre in Harput (1895), Massacre in Sivas (1895), Massacre in Trabzon (1895), Massacre in Marash (1895). Thus I proposed to merge it to Hamidian massacres. Takabeg (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not be true of the other massacres you mention. However, pages 128-129 of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response goes into considerable detail about the Erzurum massacre, quoting from extensive contemporary coverage in the British newspaper The Graphic. Those articles are called "what must be one of the most extraordinary pieces of photojournalism of the era". Google Books only lets me see those two pages, but it appears that the coverage continues onto following page(s). So, we have newspaper coverage from that era, and historical analysis many years later, of the specific events in Erzurum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is arguing for merger not deletion. Warden (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge to Erzurum massacres without the date in the title. But ofcourse the merger discussion doesn't need to take place here. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid grounds for deletion asserted, especially as the article stands now. The nominator has pretty much conceded below that the article is going to be kept, and given the tone of the discussion, continuing it is not going to do anyone any good. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammadabad, Iran[edit]

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

Article without usable information. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is useful as a disambiguation page and the fact that there are over 300 places in Iran named Mohammadabad is interesting and useful. I added a link to one of the towns that already had a stub article. I don't see any reason to delete it. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mohammadabad, Esfahan Province. While towns and such are inherently notable, there's no use in having a disambiguation page that doesn't go to any articles - that's a linkfarm. The dab page can be restored (though not in its current linkfarm form) if pages on the other places are created. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirecting to one will make it harder for not regular users to create the others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nom. has not provided any rationale for deletion; smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend. At the time of nomination the rationale was WP:NOBODYCANUSETHIS. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a valid disambiguation page. Even if the external links were all removed, there are now about 20 articles linked from here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this not done earlier? It isn't a recent article. But let me say this: at 31 article (10% of the former 307 geolinks) I will withdraw my nomination because then I will regard it a useful article. I hope that someone takes up the challenge! Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your extortion is absurd; any disambiguation page is valid with 2 articles. How about this: if the article is kept, you are deemed to have your final warning against disruptive AFD nominations: the next one gets a permablock. Enjoy that challenge! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal violence, here or on my talkpage, will not help you, my friend. And I am talking about a challenge, it is not "extortion" as you want to call it. It give me the idea that you just want to protect your own work without valid arguments. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no valid arguments for deletion. You apparently are not here to build an encyclopedia but to disrupt it. I'll let the closing administrator evaluate all the arguments and see whether your nomination is as boneheaded as it seems. Will you next nominate Smith for deletion until articles on 10% of all notable Smiths are created? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:No personal attacks? I don't think so if I see this senseless rant. You can shout and roar and threath me with blocks, but I only listen to serious arguments. It is unlikely now that a closing admin will remove the article, now it is improved big time. I only ask for a bit more and then I offer to put in a speedy close as keep. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that; and the "verbal violence" comment you made is afoul of it. I have called your argument boneheaded; whether you're a bonehead or not I have not addressed as that would violate the NPA. Your nomination was wrong from the get go and unless you learn from your errors, you will likely repeat them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy deleted as duplicate (A10). Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a Palestinian?[edit]

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

Completely original research, the title in itself shows that this topic is not for Wikipedia Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a move of content from Definition of Palestine and Palestinians - a split of e article since there is not much overlap between the two. The title style follows Who is a Jew? and Who is a Hindu?. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer suggests a certain amount of POINTiness. Who Is a Hindu? is a book, not an article about Hindu identity. You can read why Who is a Jew? has that specific title on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Corgill[edit]

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

Not notable actress, minor roles only - search returns little reliable to create a biographical article about a low notable person. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 09:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 12:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gogh Van Go[edit]

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

I just contested a PROD which had as its reason "The article gives no indication of notability, and the groups seems to fail the notability requirements of WP:BAND. The article also cites no references". I found and added three sources after a quick search. They're not good sources (two are Amazon, and the other is just a music catalog site of some sort), but they make it look like there are 2 commercial albums out there - though I've no idea if the labels are themselves notable. Anyway, at the very least, I think it needs AfD rather than PROD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added referenced notation to the band's 1995 JUNO Award win for Best Video. --Rburriel (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added numerous newspaper sourced references with proper annotations. --Rburriel (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Montreal Gazette, Billboard magazine and the JUNO Awards are pretty reliable and verifiable sources. I think we can put this matter to rest now. --Rburriel (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BAND as having gained canada's highest award and undertaken a North American tour. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the above, I also found this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anselm's Church (Lafayette, California)[edit]

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

No credible assertion of notability. Article was created merely to establish the need for a disambig page, according to this comment. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is established already that the topic of this California church is wikipedia-notable. Tag as needing development (but the stub tag already does that). Needing development is not a reason to delete. It would obviously be easy to develop this topic further, by use of the Time magazine article and other sources mentioned in the article. AFD nomination seems inappropriate. --do ncr am 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, hasn't been established. What's the title of the Time Magazine article?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Art: The New Churces. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cbl. I searched for it myself, honest... In any case, that wouldn't be sufficient to establish notability by itself. Can you find any of the other articles mentioned? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link (in of all places ebay) to a magazine article on the churches of Olav Hammarstrom (1907-2002), which appears (?) to include the one in Lafayette: [1]. This source also appears to be on point. Hammarstrom was affiliated with Eero Saarinen and appears to be notable in his own right. Someone might want to consider creating an article on him as well. Plenty of source materials, including: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Pacific Churchman" doesn't appear to be on-line. The Library of Congress site, however, lists libraries that have it: [6]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, nothing in Maine, what a shock...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. I'm not sure I like the idea of creating articles simply to fill a hole in a disambiguation page. That said, there's an assertion that there was coverage of the church's architecture in magazines of the time. It's not as famous as Christ Church Lutheran (Minneapolis, Minnesota), but at least it's got a few mentions. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Not many churches rate a page in Time Magazine; that's impressive. However I could not find anything else at Google News or Google Books. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak keep; the arguments below are persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although MelanieN's point is well-taken, the Time article plus the mention of the coverage of the architecture in several other publications of the era, which may not be available online, convince me that it is worth keeping and could be better referenced with more research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be an architecturally significant structure by a significant architect. The Time article was accurately described in the web site published by the church. Although the other sources referenced there haven't been accessed on-line, I have no reason to doubt that those sources are accurately reported, as was the Time article. Given the extent of attention in the press to the building's architecture, it seems to me that the best course is to keep. Hopefully, others will be able to access some of the other materials and improve further. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The article could be better, especially if someone tracks down the references mentioned at the end, but that it is not notable seems silly. An article, even a stub about the architect would help too. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: You know, there seems to be a divide among Wikipedians in interpreting notability. Some believe that any article should be deleted if it does not establish notability, others believe that an article should only be deleted if no independent reliable sources that cover the topic non-trivially exist. I tend to be in the latter camp. Even though the sourcing is poor as it exists, non-trivial coverage in independent sources does exist, as evinced by the Time article. The article also correctly establishes that it's not "just another church"; its notability lies in its architecture. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is on your side. -- 202.124.74.9 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Manteghi[edit]

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

This academic does not appear to meet wp's notability standards. Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cites on GS are insufficient for WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. On a solid academic career track but as Xxanthippe says too early to have demonstrated sufficient impact for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like quite a few papers done while a PhD candidate, Still too early as per Xxanthippe, but I wouldn't doubt to see him eventually meet the requirements. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Subject is not a full professor but has quite a number of papers in peer-reviewed journals and is also a co-holder of several patents for Radio-frequency identification systems. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too early does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO at the moment, but is a good candidate for an article in the future. Grand total of 272 citations on GS, and an h-index of 8 at the moment, with about 27 new cites per year. Article was created too early.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't see anything that would be bigraphically helpful on both Yahoo! and Google aside from contact information on .edu webpages. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 06:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IChill[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Only references given are to the manufactuer's own site, press releases, or content unrelated to this product. As the original version of this article stated, it is one of 350 products just like it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information is provided, as well as a link to the FDA regarding dietary supplements. You claim that it is not notable because there are 350 other relaxation "drinks", but iChill claims to be the worlds first relaxation "shot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes the product notable because it's small? Or because the manufacturer says it's notable? The article is factual and non-promotional, granted, but the product is still non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no credible claim to notability. If the claim that they were the world's first "relaxation shot" has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company there may be a case for notability, but such coverage doesn't seem to exist. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the page have been made. It is a notable product featured on many prominent television programs, and it has nationally televised commercials. Being the world's first relaxation shot is a very important factor. Keep in mind the product is only two years old, and I think the amount of coverage and awareness it has received in such time accredits to the viability of the page. Check out youtube.com and see for yourself how much coverage that iChill has received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradas (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think there is just about enough coverage in independent sources to pass the notability test. Besides the links in the article ([7],[8]) I found these two in reliable sources: [9],[10] Robofish (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend against deletion of this article.

I use Wikipedia as my prime information source, regardless of subject, as I suspect is becoming standard for a rapidly increasing number of people. When I saw this product "Ichill" on one billboard on a highway in the metroplex it is made in it was my first exposure to it. At next opportunity I consulted Wiki. The article was not lengthy but was somewhat informative - I would have classified it a "stub", mainly as it lacked even a proposition as to method of function. It did not contain anything obviously inaccurate, misleading, offensive or unbalanced. This alone made it a useful source for increasing my information on this product. Increasing available information through a communal but disputable open source approach is Wikipedia's vision, and this stub-like article accomplished this. Frankly I do not understand the objections to it - the salient one of there being 350 relaxation drinks was completely new information to me before consulting Wikipedia on this one, also tangentially increasing my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WayneLBurnham (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC) — WayneLBurnham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I watched the clips from the View and GMA. The View never said their name - they were on camera along with several other similar drinks. GMA mentioned them in passing along with many other similar drinks. The few sources I see (above and in the article) aren't enough IMO to convey notability. Mention in passing is most of this drink's coverage. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Transity. I watched the clips, and checked out the references, and they don't seem to be enough to establish the notability of the product. Those that mention it in detail are not third-party, and those that are third-party don't give significant coverage. - Sudo Ghost 23:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the is a serious lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - iChill was recently featured in a segment on MSNBC. The segment may be controversial, but it still adds to the already acceptable (and growing) amount of coverage on iChill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.191.2 (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've missed this AfD discussion, the "acceptable" among of coverage doesn't establish the notability of the article. That your only editing on Wikipedia has been to add this product to various articles and to vote to keep the article should be taken into consideration for the reviewing admin. - Sudo Ghost 22:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shelley (musician)[edit]

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

The lead of the biography is well written, giving out all the claims of notability, but my biggest concern is that none of his albums have hit the charts yet, which this fails WP:MUSICBIO. Minima © (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO Whiteguru (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: the lack of chart hits is of no real concern here because he clearly meets WP:GNG (and thus WP:MUSICBIO #1). Just look at the slew of sources which have written about him compiled on his website[11], which include many mainstream newspapers in britian. I also easily found more profile news articles, [12], [13]. The article needs improvement but not deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by User:Milowent. This bio passes GNG now, but could use more information. Since his personal webpage provides online sources some of which come from RS, room for expansion. BusterD (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been relisted? After Milowent's intervention the GNG is surely more than met.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of the sources Milowent points to are verifiable. Satisfies WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Victoria Summer League Season 2010[edit]

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

Not remotely a notable topic – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems to be expired promotionalism. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This local youth/senior baseball league fails WP:GNG by lacking non-routine coverage in multiple independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. This is merely an amateur league. LibStar (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of bespectacled baseball players[edit]

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

Baseball players who wear glasses are now a notable subset? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep the sources seem to indicate that, perhaps contrary to expectation, baseball players who wear glasses are indeed a notable subset. I admit that the article needs work, especially given that the inclusion of some of the players on the list isn't sourced and that most of the information comes from one article, but it's a serious article in a serious publication. also, I think that in baseball circles, anything that bill james thinks is worth mentioning is notable. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it could use another source or two if it's to be kept, but really I think it would need to be renamed to "List of baseball players with glasses," because this title is just funny. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I found a few more sources, and, amazingly, a couple more players. Even more interestingly, the word 'bespectacled' is used in all of them. I personally love the title, but perhaps your suggestion is more dignified and we could add a redirect? Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need a couple more non-routine sources to be identified to justify this not being developed on a WP:userpage first. —Bagumba (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR #7, a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. It cannot be shown that the intersection of baseball players and people who wear eyeglasses is a notable intersection. —SW— ^yak 16:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided demonstrate notability. The current title is fine. Warden (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? As far as I can tell this is the only source in the article that focuses on vision in baseball. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the source Beating the breaks: major league ballplayers who overcame disabilities covers the topic in considerable detail too. These sources demonstrate notability and list examples, just like our list. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As was said elsewhere here, this fails WP:NOTDIR #7. Q.E.D. yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment it seems that if tattooed baseball players were as widely discussed in a range of sources as bespectacled ones, then we would want to have a list of them, yes. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Umont's spectacles are in the Baseball Hall of Fame. We could have a separate list for umpires but it seems sensible to keep this together. We could amend the title to make this clearer, if we think any reader is actually going to be confused by this. Warden (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list of players should not include an umpire unless he was also a player. Spanneraol (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This subpoint should probably be addressed on the talkpage of the article (if kept), rather than at AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of fictional cats and other felines to create List of fictional cats and other felines owned by baseball players with glasses. What, you think that may not be a notable intersection? Nor is this. The fact that there are sources out there that have listed players who wear glasses doesn't make it notable, I'm afraid. Delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral but kind of leaning delete-- as an overly specific categorization. Yes, someone has written an article about a few baseball players that wear glasses. And yes, there are sources that show other players also where glasses. But there's nothing to show the notability of the intersection. People have also written about actors who were in both Robocop and 24, but, as much as I would love it, we aren't going to have an article about that anytime soon.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To a non-fan, this might indeed seem a completely random intersection, along the lines of "list of baseball players with long hair" or "list of baseball players with braces on their teeth." But in fact, it's of interest and significance, because there is a growing literature discussing the relationship between a prospects making and succeeding in the major league and the quality of his eyesight. (Believe it or not, there is also a growing literature discussing the relationship between success and eye color, because light-eyed players assertedly have greater difficulty picking up the ball against a bright background during day games—but that's a different discussion.) Against the potential stereotype that a player who has to wear glasses is at a disadvantage, this list contains some interesting counterexamples. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of the "deletes" could probably be persuaded if someone could identify for this AfD the "growing literature" Newyorkbrad referred to that presumably has non-trivial coverage (i.e. not just listing players that wear glasses). —Bagumba (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I'd be more than happy to change to keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ditto. At the moment, the sources are trivial. I remember a similar AfD (which annoyingly I can't find now) about professional sportsmen who had Aspergers syndrome. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked Newyorkbrad on his talk page to help us out with these sources. Hopefully he'll be able to come by and clear things up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you guys finding sources yourself? I just spent a few more minutes on the matter and soon turned up the fact that David A. Goss, Professor of Optometry at Indiana State, has written a history of spectacle wear by baseball players. A version of this was published in 1996 in a journal devoted to Sports Vision topics. Looking further, I find an article about the topic, Glasses Half Full, which indicates that The Cultural Encyclopedia of Baseball is a good source for this sort of information. Now you could have found all this yourself - you just had to look. If you haven't looked and you're not familiar with the topic, as NYB seems to be, then please don't comment as this is not a vote and so we prefer informed input. Warden (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this encyclopedia is a collaborative effort, and there's nothing wrong with asking another editor to help out. Not everything has to be so dramatic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask editors to assume good faith that editors will fix any problems when they can with a reminder that the burden is on editors who add material to provide reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did look, and I found the same item as you, which - like all the others unearthed so far - is effectively a list of baseball players who wore glasses. As I said, if there was deeper significant discussion of the cultural significance of the intersection, then fine, but I don't see anything like that so far. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is taking one trait—wearing glasses—from a few sources, and incorrectly applying notability to all players wearing glasses. The sources discuss notable players who have worn glasses, but never discusses as a whole all players with glasses. USA Today only points out individual notable players with glasses. The Glasses Half Full article also discusses individual players and notable events, but not the entire glasses-wearing universe. WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." This criteria is not met. In fact, Glasses Half Full implies the group today is rather non-notable, saying "By the end of the 1970s, the wearing of glasses and contact lenses had become commonplace—so much so that they practically ceased to bring attention to themselves." In most cases WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, but consider that a topic such as black players in baseball has a list, List of first black Major League Baseball players by team and date, but does not have an exhaustive list of all blacks in baseball. There may be potential for an entirely different article based on reliable sources to discuss trends in glasses or overall corrective vision (let's include contacts and laser surgery) in baseball history. However, the subject and format of this current article implies notability of a group of people that is not verifiable. —Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The intersection of the categories is noted in several reliable sources. A USA Today article is already referenced in the WP article. I don't have access to the full text of this NY Times piece, [14], entitled "Spectacled Sportsmen; Not only in baseball but in most other sports, ranking players wear glasses", but maybe someone else does. In response to a reader comment, Baseball Digest replied "There have been many major leaguers who excelled while wearing glasses."[15] and posted a montage of 'bespectacled MVP winners" Dick Allen, Reggie, and Jeff Burroughs. The subject gets at least five paragraphs in this book - [16] IMO these suffice. Novickas (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. To expand a little on the Glasses Half Full piece that Warden mentions above [17] - it's about 1,100 words on the topic and the author is Bruce Markusen, who works for the Society for American Baseball Research [18]. Novickas (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a logic to this list. HItting a moving baseball is one of the supreme tests of hand-eye coordination — a fraction of a inch or a hundredth of a second and a homerun becomes a pop up or a foul ball. Therefore, players with impaired and corrected vision are of interest to aficionados of the sport. This is not a list of unrelated things, such as List of baseball players who drive a red car would be, for example. Published sources are showing above to indicate that the notion of "bespectacled baseball players" is novel and noteworthy. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest A. Kilbourne[edit]

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

Non-notable co-founder of a mission society (alternately the Oriental Mission Society or the One Mission Society) that is apparently not notable enough for its own article. Only references given or publications of the founded society. Article authored by a representative of the society. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect to the nominator, a topic can't be deemed non-notable because it does not yet have an article on Wikipedia. According to this listing in the Encyclopedia of Protestantism, the Oriental Mission Society is notable, and an editor with an interest ought to write an article about it. There are plenty of other sources available about the OMS. As for Ernest A. Kilbourne, he is discussed in that encyclopedia article, and a Google Books search verifies that he is also discussed in many books about Christian missionary work in Asia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an obit in the LA times (in fact, three, on April 14, 15, and 16, 1928), and mentions in Allen D. Clark (1961), History of the Korean church and other books, as noted by Cullen328. And WP:OTHERSTUFF is a weak deletion argument. -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The original deletion argument is no longer valid as OMS is notable Spiderone 11:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G4. Another recreation of page that has now been the topic of two deletion discussions. Article salted for one year. If he meets the notability guidelines before that year, unprotection can be requested at WP:RFUP -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Abeid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is insufficient coverage for Mr. Abeid to meet WP:GNG, and he has not made any appearances in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Massie[edit]

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

doubtful notability --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Try zero notability. Got to be speedyable somehow. Keresaspa (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the above regards a speedy, but I probably would have BLP PROD'd this to give the author a chance to find references. I couldn't find anything on the net. The football club he supposedly plays for is also having its article considered for deletion. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL by a long, long way. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not meeting NFOOTBALL or GNG. Xajaso (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bruce (Texas journalist)[edit]

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

This article does not meet the inclusion criteria. Sources are a paid obituary and an article in the paper where he worked for decades. He was a journalist for a local paper, did not win any major awards that I can find and seems to have had no major legacy. Good at his job, but not well-known outside his community. Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this article doesn't meet notability. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at author's request. This is the major journalist from Abilene in the second half of the 20th century. Abilene is a major city in West Texas. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not come anywhere near WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. MarnetteD | Talk 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dobos United[edit]

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

doubtful notability --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this team is part of a notable league, which it doesn't appear to be. Several Times (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 06:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, this actually looks to be a school team - "the teams are on the 7B Class." GiantSnowman 12:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would fit with the article on one of their players, Steve Massie (currently also at AfD) stating that he is 12/13 years old -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A million miles away from notability! Keresaspa (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Georg Mozart[edit]

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

This person is not worthy of anything he may have done himself. His mention is only in passing as a grandfather of a famous musician. This man has a weaker claim to notability than Britney Spears's mother. I would urge deletion of this article post-haste lest Wikipedia be held to be a laughingstock. Uywwi (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trying to force us into agreeing with your deletion recommendation "lest Wikipedia be held to be a laughingstock" is an totally inappropriate way to open an AfD. Please don't do it again. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to be a little more civil in your tone. Who are you to start bossing people around like some drill sergeant? Eh? Uywwi (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, kids. Uywwi, for laughing stock, we have anime. Jethrobot, don't take the bait. ;) 207.157.121.52 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ordinary person, led ordinary life. Edison (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Books does not suggest that he is independently notable--but leave the redirect. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only notability seems to be that he was related to a notable person. That does not seem to be grounds for an article. ItsZippy (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hold on. I'm not sure that this is a good faith nomination. Please see the following thread at ANI.[19] Can we contact somebody who's knowlegable about classic music and would know whether this person is notable. There aren't going to be very many online sources for an article like this. The article is currently sourced to a book. Does anyone have access to the book to know whether there's substantial coverage about this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's normal for Mozart biographies to begin with his ancestry. This is true for the Solomon bio cited in this article, and also for the most prestigious Mozart biography, that of Hermann Abert (see Google Books, [20], page 1). People who are highly interested in Mozart are naturally also interested in his family background: for instance, how far back were there musicians in the family? [answer: just one generation]. Were there other relatives recognized for genius? [answer: not really, maybe Nannerl and Leopold] Since Mozart biographies cover this sort of thing, it's reasonable for WP to do so as well. Opus33 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment people who are "highly interested" in any celebrity might want to learn their family background, but creating articles for every ancestor of a famous person runs afoul of WP:NOTABILITY which says that notability is not inherited (nor does it flow to ancestors not otherwise notable). Edison (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you clicked on the link above labelled "books" and counted the number? That's some coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Opus33 and AQ4K. Almost certainly intended as disruption. There are nearly 300 GBooks hits on the name, indicating more than a reasonably moderate level of coverage for a historical figure. It looks like the scholarly/historical record sufficiently documents him in his own right, for whatever reasons, which makes him an appropriate subject for encyclopedic coverage. If there were a batch of stubbish articles, perhaps a family article might be appropriate, but I'm not seeing that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above, as the subject's notability is established in literature as noted above. It would be silly to go any further up the family tree, though. Several Times (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course, as Opus explains. Bad faith nom by someone who has been trolling us since 2005. Tempted to speedy this or just close it. Antandrus (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be inappropriate to speedily close an AFD which has several good-faith delete !votes. There is absolutely no inherent notability just for being the quite ordinary grandfather of some famous person. WP:NOTABILITY notes that notability does not flow to someone just because they are related to a notable person. He is only mentioned in connection with his progeny, so a mention in the descendants' articles might be appropriate rather than a stand-alone article, as recommended by WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. In general I would agree with you, but this particular banned user's MO is to start AFDs on things that will cause lots of argumentation -- that's how he gets his jollies -- and any such page created is speedy-deletable under the "created in violation of a ban" criteria. Still I'm letting it go since the debate has been civil and reasonable and, if anything, this discussion is useful on the general issue of inherited notability. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to assume that the other Delete !voters and I are somehow zombies, enchanted into involuntary and unreasoned agreement with some bad-guy nominator. I looked at the article, and concluded that he was about as notable as my own grandfathers. Nothing he ever did was notable. The only reason anyone looks him up today is because his testes on one occasion produced a spermatazoam which led to a son, whose own son in turn was Wolfgang Mozart. Good enough to mention him in articles about Leopold and Wolfgang. Not notable enough for his own article, per Wikipedia guidelines. Edison (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never assumed you were a "zombie". Never mind; forget I commented at all. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as explained above. The nominator, now blocked indefinitely, writes "His mention is only in passing …" which is not true; I wonder how the nominator failed to notice the substantial coverage BEFORE the nomination. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Michael Bednarek, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no time to look into this in detail, but would like to ask a question about the purported hundreds of books "covering" this person: I would expect every biography of Wolfgang Amadé or Leopold to mention Johann Georg. Is this the explanation of all those hits? Unless there is something that makes this person notable beyond being the (grand)father of two famous people, I don't see why this article should be kept. As an aside, I have read a great deal about Mozart and his life and don't remember ever having heard of Johann Georg (which probably means that if he was mentioned in the books that I read, he was probably just in-passing). Nannerl, Konstanze, and Franz Xaver obviously are notable people. I'm less convinced about Joseph and don't find the arguments presented above very convincing either. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though a merge to a combination article with his other ancestors would also be possible. If people are famous enough, their direct ancestors can be notable. Mozart is famous enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 July 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mayboroda[edit]

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

I removed a Prod based on comments on the article talk page. Original Prod reasoning was:

"No reliable sources - most of the references don't mention Mayboroda and the others are self-published. Nothing relevant on Google either (see the Talk page). The article claims he has held various university and management positions but provides no references, and in any case these would probably be insufficient to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS"

I currently have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or deleted. GB fan please review my editing 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my earlier prod. It's worth noting that the author has been pushing the fringe technology that makes up the bulk of this article - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accumulating Space Device (ASD) andy (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I don't see much salvageable material here. Perhaps he'd be safer in the Russian-language WP? Several Times (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDear Editors. I am writing to you because of your false, based on nothing, accusations regarding the following: 1) "No reliable sources - most of the references don't mention Mayboroda and the others are self-published. Nothing relevant on Google either" this is not substantial for a number of reasons First of all, I have provided the article with various reliable and veryfiable sources: 1) "Техника-молодежи» 1984 №5, с.30-35 -"Technical youth" 1984 (in Russian) 2) "Техника-молодежи» 2011 №7,Безракетный космос. Ну, почти безракетный... В новых орбитальных и межпланетных транспортных системах ракеты будут играть роль второго плана -"Technical youth" 2011 W. Meylitsev. Non-rocket space. Well, almost non-rocket… (in Russian). 3) I dont UNDERSTAND WHAT is THE PROBLEM WITH the offical state and interstate web-sites I have included. WHAT IS WRONG? I mean web-sites like www1.fips.ru and http://wipo.int/portal/index.html.en 4) I have added a new reference about Mayboroda's political position and how he was once a candidate for a deputy in State Duma. It is a russian source but the wiki rules say that sources should not neccesarily be in english. Please, check this out as well I am gonna add another reliable and verifiable sources to this article. But i feel like i am being accused of creating some rubbish wiki articles in advance without even careful reading and checking which is not acceptable and which is going to have some consequences for the offenders. As for the accusation that this article is an original research it is a sheer illusion and misunderstanding. All information that is included in this article had been published in various sources (including WIPO AND FIPS WEB_SITES, TECHNIKA MOLODEZI, various hard sources and journals etc etc) SO HOW IS IT THAT THIS ARTICLE IS AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH IF I HAVE SHOWN THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN VARIOUS SOURCES BEFORE. Another thing is

Keep English secondary and tertiary sources may in fact be limited, though Demetriades and the young technician refs from Bolonkin is enough of a mention for me to accept as a keep via secondaries/tertiaries. It is true that the article may need cutting down somewhat, there are a fair amount of refs to the Mayboroda.com site which may need some serious discussion. There is a reference here to the entry in Young Technician No. 10 as well as Bolonkin using his article in two or more publications Space towers and New Technologies and Revolutionary Projects. The patent is at this location in WIPO. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see this. The first reference is merely a citation and the next two don't mention him at all. Moreover New Technologies and Revolutionary Projects cites wikipedia as a source! None of this is remotely close to WP:RS. andy (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That he quotes Wikipedia as a source does not affect the issue that he also quotes Mayboroda as one. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is so, so far from WP:RS. andy (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is? The book I mentioned is an RS, and it plus the two additionals were being used to show that the article from the magazine was mentioned elsewhere (as you can clearly see from my statement above). Is it your contention that the book published by Elsevier fails RS in some way? If you simply want the last word, then fine, but so far you have not persuaded me that this should be deleted and it is unlikely that you will. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book does not discuss Alexander Mayboroda at all, and hence does not help for WP:BIO. It does cite one of Mayboroda's articles, but many, many citations are needed to meet WP:PROF. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stating the obvious, I did say that this was not to prove anything other than the article had been used as a source in a published book. That is simply it. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In other words, it's an RS, but not one contributing to notability for this article. Ditto the Demetriades article -- it's probably an RS but, being written when the subject was 5 years old, not relevant to notability. In fact, I can't see any sources that are (1) reliable, (2) independent, and (3) contributing to notability under WP:BIO or WP:PROF. -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Sir Chaosdruid, I totally agree with you regarding your remarks about the neccessety to cut down the article in order to improve it. I will do so with your help. Just wait for a while until we get it right. I 'll put up more references. And we can talk about mayboroda.com as well. I'd really like to know how i can use some of the animated pictures that are available at mayboroda.com and that are very relevant in terms of their support to his patented inventions. These animated pictures clarify a lot about his theoretical inventions. thanks a lot for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability (meets neither WP:BIO or WP:PROF); no mention of the subject's name in independent, reliable sources. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am also concerned about all the images in the article, which appear to be taken from mayboroda.com and other web sites. This in turn suggests either (1) massive copyvio, or (2) that the author of the article is in fact Alexander Mayboroda, which would be massive COI. -- 202.124.74.236 (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The statement "... which is going to have some consequences for the offenders" above appears to constitute WP:THREAT or WP:VIOLENCE -- 202.124.72.155 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andy!!! First, thanks very much for telling me that I should sign what I say. I will try my best to put it into practice. ALthough it may take some time until i figure out how it actually works (please, dont forget that i am very new to it).

As for my statement " ...which is going to have some consequences ..." i find it so amazing ..how we can interprete things since it does not refer to legal consequences of any sort whatsoever. To clarify, that statement is referred to the phrases related to my another article and which are (1) "apparently feasible, if somewhat dodgy, proposed technology that is referred to in Alexander Mayboroda" and "wild speculations" posted by Andy Smith. And this was a warm, welcoming word to a new user which is ME. I wrote that it's actually offensive (offensive not in a legal sense but in moral and human) to call patented (registred) inventions wild speculations and dodgy technologies which shows the level of "education" of the author of these words (especially taking into account that the author is an actual Wiki editor) and which is going to be complained about sooner or later at the administrators' of Wikipedia page. I am very sorry if it was taken in any other way / it is not my fault. any language is imperfect. so it is neither WP:THREAT or WP:VIOLENCE but WP:INEVITABILITY

As for the copyrights violation and the so-called WP:COI|COI statements they are not evidenced or substantial — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC) They are not substantial because they are actually against what the copyvio page says (Dear editors please, read the wiki guidance carefully) The copyvio page goes "...However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation..." So I, Sychev Ivan, has posted all the images related to Mayboroda's biography and his inventions a) with the permission of their author, Alexander Mayboroda, HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO KEEPING THEM ON WIKI. WHAT IS THE DIFFICULTY? all these images are in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan.sychev108 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If images owned by Alexander Mayboroda are being used with his permission, than the process in WP:Requesting copyright permission needs to be followed. -- 202.124.72.194 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Hi there! not a problem. I'll get through the official procedure of WP:Requesting copyright permission although i have already got an oral permission. anyhow that's ok. now i am more concerned with posting more reliable sources confirming more and more points i make in the article. by the way the article has already been greatly modified in this sence, so, please, kindly check. I have removed info i m unlikely to prove very quickly. but now i m gonna put up more sources. the only problem for you, my dear editors, may be that it's gonna be mostly sources in russian language. or you have got problems with it? i think you should have russian editors you can contact to check my sources, that's not a big deal. otherwise it maybe quilified as "discrimination"...anyhow, thanks a lot for your patience and help [[Ivan.sychev108 (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Martinez (Louisiana politician)[edit]

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

This article does not meet the inclusion criteria. The subject is a former official in the LA Republican Party, but she seems to have had little actual influence. The article is full of WP:OR (sources include genealogy sites). None of the sources listed meet WP:RS - they are either unreliable (rootsweb), primary sources (SSDI), not independent (NFRW), and none of them provide significant coverage of the subject. Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the subject was politically active from 1977 to 1992 (she's so old, the article doesn't know her exact birthdate). Hence internet sources are highly unlikely to exist, but it's quite possible she was covered by print media at the time. G News shows up many paid articles (I searched for "Virginia Martinez" republican, standard elimination of non-reliable sources, and pigeonholed between 1975 and 1992), though it's difficult to establish whether they really mention her (Martinez is a very common name, I've found articles about a different Virginia Martinez a few years after the death of the one in the article). If she's the one mentioned in all those articles, she's probably notable. But is she? Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's another Virginia Martinez who was active in politics in Chicago; most of these articles are discussing that one. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's the secret - you have to search under Ginny Martinez. Under that name she got a lot of coverage and did seem to be at least somewhat influential. Most of the coverage is local, from The Advocate, but she also rated an item in the Washington Post. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Treasurer of two Republican National Conventions (believed to be !1984 and ?1988) referred to in this namesake [scholarship] of the Louisiana Federation of Republican Women. Dru of Id (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Her death was reported in at least the Washington Post, the San Jose Mercury News and the St Petersburg Times, confirming that she was treasurer for the Republican National Conventions in '80 and '84. They also report her age at death as 69. Mhjohns (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly meets the notability threshold. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by author's request. I was told that the cemetery records were destroyed by Katrina, and the funeral home said the only way to find the exact date of birth was to come to the cemetery and check the gravestone unless I could contact a family member. Billy Hathorn (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Ball (composer)[edit]

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

A composer and violinist. Works in the video gaming industry. Has listed six games he worked on with four references. Two of the references states he was the violinist, one states he was one of many composers on a game and the last reference doesn't mention him. Couldn't find any reliable sources about him. However, there is a flutist named Jeff Ball that has a ton of sites that popup on Google (and a baseball player, bowler, photographer, etc), so I probably missed something. Bgwhite (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 05:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is not comparable to people such as Jeremy Soule and Mark Griskey. Negativecharge (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COMPOSER lists the notability criteria for musicians, but a review of the information in the article shows that this person does not meet the criteria. --Noleander (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 22:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Gosiengfiao[edit]

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

Unsourced biography, article's subject does not appear to have any notability. Google search returns nothing outside of blogs and social media websites. Sudo Ghost 14:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She may very well follow in her older sister's footsteps and become notable someday, but not quite yet. No sources ----> no article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage. On a Yahoo! search, all I found were social networking sites as well. No sources, no article, as Puchiko said. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Facebook and other personal sites alone are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Railpage Australia#Railcam_Project, where the information already exists. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunbury Street Railcam Project[edit]

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

I can't find any independent reliable sources for this Railcam Project. Fails basic notability guidelines WP:Note JimmyGiggle (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is an independent source? I have seen the cameras myself and I can view the output. What else would be required? Isn't the proof available on the photostream which is listed in the article? I can also find the camera output live and on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozrailfans (talk • contribs) 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed nomination header. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N, our basic notability guideline, requires multiple secondary sources that cover the subject in-depth (i.e. not just a passing mention) and are independent of the subject (not written by or for the subject or someone closely associated with it). An example would be an article about it in a magazine or newspaper. See Wikipedia:Independent for more detail. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything from a 3rd party to point to the notability of the project. It is associated with the Railpage Australia website and Melbourne Wireless, but that isn't enough to meet WP:N. Possibly merge to either of these wiki entries? Wongm (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it exist. good enough for me. for now. re-nominate in the future if still status quo.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an really an argument -- WP:ITEXISTS. Notability is concerned with broad coverage in reliable secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it sounds cool, but unfortunately it can't have its own page due to lack of notability; there's no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. A merge to a page like Railpage Australia seems reasonable though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a good choice.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is strongly for keep. I agree. Analyzing the arguments briefly, I think the argument that he fails ONEEVENT is disproven by his accepted notability here as tested by 2 AfDs before the event. There seems to be enough sources presented; that most are from after the Norway events shows added notability, & is not a reason to delete. A merge into the recent attacks would . And, in my opinion, be a serious BLP violation, implying his direct association with them. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Most sources used in the article are either the blogger's own texts, or other blogs. Sources that may be considered to be valid for establishing notability do not show significant coverage of the blogger. Cs32en Talk to me 14:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: Following the recent changes to the article, I am changing my request to merge into 2011 Norway attacks.~~ Cs32en Talk to me 01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking out my update above, as the rewrite of the article has been reverted by Yngvadottir (talk · contribs).) Cs32en Talk to me 04:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of rationale for the request In the last two days, a number of reliable sources have mentioned Fjordman. These sources generally report on an alleged connection of Fjordman to Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks. The article thus falls under WP:BLP1E, the policy for people notable for a single event only. As the issues related to the misuse of self-published and non-reliable sources in the article can be addressed after a merger, I am requesting to merge the article to 2011 Norway attack, in light of the recent reports in reliable sources. In addition, some information about Fjordman may be added to Anders Behring Breivik, subject to discussion at that article. Cs32en Talk to me 17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The number of available source has increased significantly in the last few days. Still, reliable sources are reporting exclusively, or almost exclusively, on Fjordman with regard to his influence on Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks. Thus, WP:BLP1E continues to apply. Please note that the article itself has also changed significantly since I nominated it for deletion. Cs32en Talk to me 06:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable but... how does it exist from 2007 and none deleted it?--46.246.173.61 (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment merely asserts non-notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in books, articles, and newspaper coverage on anti-Islamic bloggers; widely cited as a prominent example outside the blogosphere as well as in. All the more so now that Anders Behring Breivik has both talked about him and republished writing by him in his manifesto. As proven by all the people who keep adding the discredited rumor that he is Breivik. The article now contains refs to several additional reliable sources arising from the Breivik association, at least one of which (from Aftenposten) is substantially about Fjordman. In short, extremely widely covered, recent coverage making his notability all the clearer. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One newspaper article is not sufficient coverage to establish notability, per WP:Notability. Cs32en Talk to me 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple newspaper articles, in particular reporting Breivik's admiration of him. I merely highlighted that one as being almost entirely about Fjordman. I have to wonder whether you have looked at the sources cited in the article—and there are others not used. Perhaps you don't accept FL sources? Under policy, he's very clearly notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now examined every source that was present in the article as of this version. The vast majority of the sources are blogs, self-published sources, texts written by Fjordman, tendentious texts by non-experts or a combination of the above. In addition, there are very few reliable sources. These sources either (a) contain only trivial references to Fjordman or (b) contain some content about Fjordman related to the 2011 Norway attacks. The number of reliable sources is insufficient to establish notability, and even if there were more reliable sources about Fjordman's alleged connection to the attacks, this would not establish any independent notability of Fjordman. In this case, the article would need to be merged into the 2011 Norway attacks article. Furthermore, the article is not based primarily on the few reliable sources that are available, and Fjordman's self-published texts are not being used to fill eventual gaps in the coverage of reliable, independent sources. Instead, the article, in it's current form, serves as a linkfarm and a soapbox for Fjordman and other people who share this blogger's views.

1. Fjordman SPS
2. Non-RS blog
3. Non-RS blog
4. Fjordman SPS
5. Non-RS blog
6. Fjordman on blog
7. Non-RS (only indicates that Fjordman is a blogger at this site)
8. Non-RS (only links to Fjordman's articles)
9. Non-RS blog
10. Non-RS blog
11. Non-RS blog (some editorial policy, but focus is on political commentary, not independent reporting)
12. Blog (provided by an RS, but this does not make the commentary by the author reliable, only mentions Fjordman in a trivial way)
13. Non-RS SPS
14. RS article based on an interview with Ole Jørgen Anfindsen
Remark: Most of the content can only be used to describe what Anfindsen says, and the rest, while containing some bits of information, is not substantial. Anfindsen is a right-wing blogger and has edited a book in which Fjordman wrote a chapter.
15. RS (reports on how Fjordman is allegedly connected to the 2011 Norway attacks, thus not an indication of independent notability)
16. RS (reports on how Fjordman is allegedly connected to the 2011 Norway attacks, thus not an indication of independent notability)
17. RS (mention of Fjordman is trivial)
18. Master's thesis (non-RS, tendentious) "This paper first demonstrates how the West is unwilling to recognize the threat it faces because of political correctness and an uncontested intellectual emasculation." (Abstract, p. 7)
19. Robert Spencer is a tendentious author and blogger, not a recognized expert. The content can only be only be used to describe Spencer's ideas, not to establish the notability of Fjordman.
20. RS (mention of Fjordman is trivial)
21. Non-RS (mention of Fjordman is trivial)
22. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
23. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
24. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
25. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
26. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
27. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
28. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman

Cs32en Talk to me 00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article succinctly, intelligibly and unaggressively presents views of those who try to protect rights of native Europeans, the white population if you like. It's the more interesting now that we see mentioning of Fjordman related to the Norwegian tragedy.Thalarctos (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Thalarctos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This comment does not address the policy-related issues. Cs32en Talk to me 18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does: it asserts notability based on coverage related to 2011 Norway attacks. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Fu*kin' Keep. What the fuck, man! This fellow is devastatingly well-known as a right wing radical spokesman. Fjordmann is frequently mentioned in the press and is as well-known in Scandinavia as David Duke, G. Gordon Liddy, and Sean Hannity are in the USA. Either this deletion request is the result of the myopic churlishness inherent of a US-centric audience or it's simply a knee-jerk reaction to the Norwegian shootings last week. Either way I have to raise my voice and say: FU*K THAT! Uywwi (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not address the policy-related issues. Uywwi is blocked indefinitely. Cs32en Talk to me 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does--"frequently mentioned in the press" is a substantiated assertion of general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not substantiated by Uywwi Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability requirements. Needs fixing, not deleting. Chzz ► 17:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated assertion. Cs32en Talk to me 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The phrase "prominent blogger" always causes some irritation but may actually be appropriate here, especially if we consider any proven connections to the recent, notable attacks in Norway. Several Times (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A connection to something that is notable does not establish notability. Cs32en Talk to me 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The poster wrote "especially." Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He went from Anonymous, to Lulzsec (?), blogging like crazy and one of the inspirations for Anders Behring Breivik!82.27.16.66 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not address the policy-related issues. Cs32en Talk to me 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment also asserts notability based on coverage related to 2011 Norway attacks. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If sufficient independent, third-party coverage for Fjordman can be found, then an article on Fjordman will be fine. At that point, the article can also reflect primarily what the reliable sources say, instead of serving as a soapbox for Fjordman and as a linkfarm for Fjordman's and other right-wing blogs. Cs32en Talk to me 18:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fjordman is the person behind the alias "misheu", who created the page about Fjordman. He's a source of many minor ingenious islam-bashing entries on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.19.224 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is true then I'd be glad to change my vote. The last thing an article like this needs is irreparable COI. That being said, it seems like Cs32en is dead set on preventing a non-delete consensus unless some third-party sources spring up.Here's a piece from Der Spiegel though I can't tell whether this was ever printed or just online-only. There's also this Dagbladet piece, with the same caveat. These sources show that this guy, regardless of his reprehensible politics, has influence beyond his Internet hate-neighbors. Several Times (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough reliable sources, then an article may be created. I'm not in any way dead set on preventing an article about Fjordman, but I'm convinced that such an article needs to be primarily based on information taken from independent, reliable sources. The current article is primarily based on Fjordman's own self-published texts, and on other non-reliable sources. Furthermore, we need reliable sources that mention Fjordman in a non-trivial way outside of the context of the 2011 Norway attacks, because if the only substantial coverage of Fjordman would be in relation to this event, then we would need to merge the article into the 2011 Norway attacks article, per WP:BLP1E (I know that this is not strictly a BLP, but I would assume that the BLP policy applies here.) Cs32en Talk to me 22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by 80.213.19.224 is in serious bad faith and insofar as it asserts conflict of interest-related disruption, could be regarded as a personal attack. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now rewritten the article, allowing to possibly start over improving it from scratch. I used the RSs I found for now (including several Norwegian ones), and others may continue adding content to the article, given that RS are found. – Bellatores (t.) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the article! Your version addresses many of my concerns, though not all. I would still argue that there is not sufficient notability independent of the 2011 Norway attacks. As that article expands, there is a possibility that content related to Fjordman would be spun-off to a subarticle. This however, would mean that a ~~((main))~~((See also)) template would need to be added to the Fjordman article, pointing to the 2011 Norway attacks. I also think we need indicate to the reader that some of the sources are tendentious in nature, e.g. Spencer and Anfindsen. So, at this point, I would change my request from delete to merge into 2011 Norway attacks. (This may mean that a new discussion would need to be opened, but I would leave it to uninvolved people to decide on how to proceed.) Cs32en Talk to me 01:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the rewrite, which was based on a much too restrictive reading of the policy on sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against merge. There is almost no connection between Fjordman the the Norway attacks. A merge would be inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should rename the article "Allegations about Fjordman's connection to the 2011 Norway attacks", as that is what the reliable sources are reporting about. Cs32en Talk to me 04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 190 references in Norwegian media past week H@r@ld (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of these links are either blogs, opinion pieces, tendentions non-reliable sources (per WP:RS), or articles that only refer to Fjordman in a trivial way, there are now some news articles (including articles that were published after I have nominated the article for deletion) that include some more information about Fjordman. Given that these articles generally explore how Fjordman was connected to Anders Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks (e.g., this CNN article), a merge would still be necessary, per WP:BLP1E, as well as a substantial rewrite of the article. Bellatores (talk · contribs) has begun such a rewrite, but has been reverted by an editor who apparently insists on referencing Fjordman's self-published text extensively, in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF. Cs32en Talk to me 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the RSs shows that Fjordman is notable enough on his own (although media has pretty much not dared to mention him before a few days ago), and I thus don't support a merge, but a keep. The sources clearly establish that he has been a major "phenomena" and an influential internet writer for years, even though they have not mentioned him very much in RS until now. – Bellatores (t.) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record; I would support a delete if it concerned the version that Yngvadottir supports, since that version beyond doubt does not have any kind of legitimacy. – Bellatores (t.) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, most right extremist bloggers are not notable. If it wasn't because of the terrorist attacks of July 22th I would have voted for a delete. 9 of the 10 largest newspapers in Norway have written about Fjordman: Aftenposten, VG (19.11.2005), Dagbladet, Bergens Tidende, Dagens Næringsliv, Adresseavisen, Stavanger Aftenblad, Fædrelandsvennen, Romerikes Blad H@r@ld (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of Counterjihadi influence on Breivik is a subject of discussion in the New York Times[21] and other prominent sources, particularly in Norway of course, eg Dagbladet[22], which refers to Fjordman aka Fjordmann as one of five Breivik "heroes" and "ideological role models" (whose response the article also reports). NYT discusses Gates of Vienna rather than Fjordman/n by name ++inserted: although it does make specific reference to him ("Mr. Breivik also quoted European blogs and writers with similar themes, notably a Norwegian blogger who writes under the name “Fjordman.”")++ but Fjordman/n is a prominent contributors to GoV and spent a while at the forefront at GoV after the killings until retiring to cope with his "exhaustion". Before Breivik was arrested Fjordman/n was being pointed to as the killer - as Fjordman/n complains (pace WP:ABOUTSELF - other rumour sites confirm that the rumour existed even if the culpability wasn't). Whether or not Fjordman/n was the original author, deleting the article at this particular moment would be a pretty good coup for those who think determining the big end or little end of notability is more important than providing information to an interested public. Opbeith (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merge I strongly oppose a merge, as it would tie Fjordman unacceptably close to the 2011 attacks, of which he, after all, was an innocent bystander. Fjordman is an independent blogger, who has no further connection to the attacks other than being so unfortunate to find himself an "ideological inspiration" to Breivik (along with very many other writers), without his knowledge. Whether the article should be deleted is another question, but I believe there is sufficient grounds for having an independent article for Fjordman (based on my version, not the perfectly deletable rubbish-article promoted by Yngvadottir); there are plenty RS for him after the attacks, and although he wasn't much noted in RS before, I think the nature of the RS compensate for this since they assert his years of major internet political influence. I don't think it matters too much how someone appears in the "spotlight", but rather just that one does one time. – Bellatores (t.) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable blogger, but the long section detailing his views gives them WP:UNDUE weight, and comes across more as promoting those views than describing them. A very tiny proportion of his notability comes from the details of his views, and a major part of it now and in the future is his inspiration of Breivik. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did not just "inspire" Breivik, he wrote half of his manifesto. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just added an intresting slant on his relationship with the Finnish MP Jussi Halla-aho.213.81.116.126 (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable in 2007, even more notable today. Wrote half of the 2083 manifesto. Being famous cannot be undone, even if one wanted to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tons of reliable press sources, nominator is being querulous in the extreme. Rebecca (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Second choice would be to merge to Counterjihad. Do not delete! I keep seeing this name in news report after news report; he's listed by the New York Times as one of a few leading proponents of the counterjihad philosophy.^[23] Merging him into a story about the terrorist attacks, which he never advocated and actually denounced, would violate BLP among other things. Wnt (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If that is not possible to agree upon, I would support the suggestion from Wnt to merge with Counterjihad. PerDaniel (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the discussion in the previous two AfDs. The concerns raised by Cs32en being valid or not, the AfD is ill advised as a first step in an improvement process of the encyclopedia. That said, lets be careful not to engage in systemic bias by pushing for a threshold of notability that is US-centric. I also strongly oppose a merge as fjordman's notability predates and is unrelated to the 2011 Norway attacks, even if the event has increased his/her profile... but profile and notability are not the same thing. --Cerejota (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Anders Behring Breivik. If this is really a different person, he's only notable to the extent that he's mentioned in connection with Anders Behring Breivik. He's not notable in his own right, he's some anonymous far-right fringe extremist blogger who once had a free Blogspot blog, and who is only known because Breivik frequently cited him in his manifesto. JonFlaune (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus--no sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checksums calculator[edit]

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

Product is non-notable. Originally speedily deleted, this has been recreated in a less promotional tone, however I don't believe it meets either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Creator is the developer of the product also. Nik thestoned 13:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Nik thestoned 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks even one reliable independent secondary source WP:RS as required by WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Not surprisingly, given the somewhat trivial nature of the product, Google searches fail to return anything beyond just a bunch of download sites. Msnicki (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Nikthestoned. Product is non-notable!? Are you so sure? Did you know that is the unique checksums calculator program witch is cross-platform developed with an open source compiler? What do we hope to find in Google searches when application has been released only 4 days ago? From the other hand, I show a lot of similar articles in Wikipedia and really I don't understand why should be deleted. Anyway if must be deleted, of course I accept it, and I apologize to you all. Regards Sideris-efthimios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideris-efthimios (talk • contribs) 14:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "notability" and other terms have slightly more technical meanings than you might expect, so it's worth reading the material at WP:GNG. Here, it's not enough that something seems notable, i.e., that people not connected to the subject should take note (because it seems notable), they have to actually do it and they have to do it in reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS. As a practical matter, for a typical software product, that usually means citing a couple magazine articles or mentions in a couple books. Currently, the article doesn't have that and when I Googled, I couldn't find any, not surprising if it's only 4 days old. Maybe the product will soon become quite a sensation. But Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. For more on how the AfD discussion here works, you'll find helpful information at WP:AFDFORMAT.

I can tell you feel passionate about this subject and making a contribution. That's great, even if your article isn't ready yet. What you might consider is requesting that your article be moved back into your user space where you can continue to work on it while you look for sources. To get useful coverage, you might consider a simple guerrilla marketing strategy of pestering journalists you think cover this sort of thing to see if you can get them interested in trying it out and writing something. Good luck.

P.S. You should sign your posts using "~~~~" as explained at WP:SIGNATURE. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that latter point is some form of WP:GAMING - if not specifically stated in the policy! Nik thestoned 15:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. It's a lot easier said than done to get a serious journalist excited enough to write something about a new product. That's why we find these sources WP:RELIABLE. They won't just write garbage PR stuff about garbage products. They have reputations and editors and readers who expect them to filter out the noise. I'm merely explaining how, if one is passionate about anything, he would go about establishing genuine notability. Those are the people to convince, not us here on WP. Do I think he's likely to have much luck? Uhm, no. But I'm not passionate about this product and maybe I'm a pessimist. What I do know is that WP is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL. Msnicki (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can't say I've attempted =P And yea, passion tends to be there when you're the developer of a product looking for exposure ;o) Nik thestoned 15:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in the wikipedia sense. W Nowicki (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable media mentions. Both a Google and Yahoo! search didn't bring any notable sources, except for the company's website. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - but the close paraphrasing needs to be looked at, and the article title probably isn't the best either Black Kite (t) (c) 00:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ward[edit]

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

Subject only notable for one event per WP:BIO. Ignorant Armies^?! 13:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of his death has been in effect an extended media and political issue in Western Australia long after he has died - the ramifications from the death of the individual has affected prisoner custody issues in general - the death of mr ward and subsequent issues constitutes a notable ongoing series of events that more or less by-pass any BIO issue IMHO - Satu Suro 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 13:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone who was an international representative in some sort of cultural exchange, and who was an expert in crafts, aboriginal hunting or in native wildlife might well have gained significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which is what Wikipedia looks for in determining the notability of an individual. Satisfaction of the relevant guideline, WP:BIO seems weak, with just two newspaper articles, by the same author. Where is the "extended media coverage?" The inquest or other official primary sources do not establish notability, nor do blogs. If it is a "political issue," is there reliable sourcing that his death had significant societal effects, such as laws passed or changed, or changed government policies? Edison (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excessively close paraphrasing The article is largely copied, with direct copying or unacceptably close paraphrasing, from the Inquest report, which is listed at the bottom of the article as a reference, but which lacks quotation marks or even inline citation in the article. The directly copied content includes "He was a well known dancer and speaker and created works in glass including the art glass series “The Seven Seals of the Ngaanyatjarra Lands.”There are also several excessively close paraphrases, with no citation or attribution. This would have to be corrected if the article were kept. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If the article were kept, and if the inquest report is not copyrighted, then sections could be directly quoted with citation, or it could be attributed in text as "The inquest report said:---" One of the press references is a deadlink, and lacks date of publication, so it fails as a reference.Edison (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being someone else's work without adequate citation, even if it is from a government report, and for lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, needed to satisfy WP:BIO, and per WP:ONEVENT. Edison (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst SatuSuro is correct in that his death has been the subject of prolonged media & political coverage as an individual (when he was alive) his notability is questionable. Looking at similar situations under Aboriginal deaths in custody it would appear that the incident is notable however the individual is not. The article if it is kept should be renamed to Ian Ward rather than Mr Ward. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article as I found it - I would put up for Afd myself - It was grossly short of correct referencing and citing - have since added some - the prolonged issues (2009 - 2011) of the death are now a bit clearer, and it should be more obvious that the death had significance - so there is no scope anymore to claim one event - that would a misreading of the article - the death became an issue in which the government moved slowly and eventually met the justice required also I disgree with previous comment - the individual (as an elder) was a significant member of the community, and his life and death had impact on the community - and Western Australia state politics if one sees some of the references cited Satu Suro 08:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he's only notable for his death, perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Mr Ward? Jenks24 (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Deletion isnt the appropriate step at worst the informations should be merged but really he sufficiently notable to be kept though it should be at his fullname or at a dismabiguation of Ian Ward a very quick search reveals that his death was reported outside of Australia. While his death is the obvious media event and border line WP:ONE his death has had impact outside of the event itself. Gnan garra 14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable event in Western Australian politics - I would however suggest a retitling to "Death in custody of Mr Ward". The use of "Mr" is in place of an Aboriginal name applied after death - see [24] Multiple reliable sources are available - it has been reported on the ABC [25] and been the subject of a one-hour investigation on one of the ABC's flagship current affairs programs [26], The Australian [27], The West Australian [28] and that's just a cursory look, it would be easy to find more as there's been plenty of stories over the 2008-2011 period. Some people here have commented on the content of the article, but deletion is based on notability. Its contents are a reason for improvement / editing, not deletion. Orderinchaos 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 14:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable in aussie politics.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both 'Just unencyclopedic' and 'Just pointing at a policy or guideline'." – quoted from WP:ITSNOTABLE (as above), which you may wish to read. Ignorant Armies^?! 10:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 06:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social network poisoning[edit]

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

Very few (47) Google hits when Wikipedia mirrors, etc. are excluded. None of the provided sources are online for verification. Also see points brought up at Talk:Social_network_poisoning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Marokwitz (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While the concepts may be applicable to other topics for which we already have articles, the subject itself is a neologism which originated on it:wp. --Versa geek 14:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonnotable neologism Also problems with verifiability. The first ref cites Kevin Mitnick's book "The art of deception" for the definition of "social network engineering," but a search of the book at Amazon does not show any occurrences of the word "poisoning" in the book. (Maybe the search engine got poisoned somehow) Google book search provides no hits for the specific phrase "social network poisoning." Neither did Google scholar. It does sound like a grabbag of tricks a hacker could use to subvert social networks. The same article was created at the Italian Wikipedia by user Paganinip on July 9, 2011 [29], also as his first edit. The first version in the English Wikipedia was also mostly in Italian. There has been nothing said on the discussion page of that Italian article. It acquired the same list of books as references, without page numbers to allow verification. The techniques described sound quite plausible, and it would be surprising if various schemes to fool or exploit social networking sites had not been implemented, such as bots creating false identities, or real users clicking on false affiliations. We need verification and actual references which can be discussed on the article talk page (or here) rather than original research followed by a bunch of general books on the topic being vaguely waved about as references for very specific statements in the text. It is not a good way to launch a Wikipedia article. If User:Pananinip still has access to the books he cites, then it should be easy enough to provide the page numbers, and to discuss exactly what the references say, on the article's talk page. Users have expressed this concern to him on his talk page. Edison (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see the creator is still adding links that don't discuss social network poisoning. The sources look useful for other articles but as there seems to be discussion of the subject 'social network poisoning' we should not be put into the position of publicising a new concept/neologism. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Meals[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball umpire, other than a simple WP:ONEEVENT missed call. Wikipedia is W:NOTNEWS, and this article is simply a magnet for cheesed-off fans (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to withdraw, based on WP:BASEBALL/N, although I question that as a notability guideline for umpires. I'll let someone else process the withdrawal of my nom. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One event does not notability give. CycloneGU (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw WP:BASEBALL/N at AN/I. Change to Speedy Keep. CycloneGU (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASEBALL/N. If it truly is "simply a magnet for cheesed-off fans", then make the semi-protection indefinite. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:BASEBALL/N.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:BASEBALL/N and now transcending into WP:GNG territory by making a controversial call in a rather long game. I'll agree that for the time being it probably needs eyes on it for vandal reasons. Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 09:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier - Prelude to Darkness[edit]

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

Doesn't fit the notability criteria, really; not a notable creator or anything either. Seems to just be a YouTube series, and we don't include them all. rebane《FOX》 08:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not-notable as per nom. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Series is noted on many websites other than youtube - www.koldcast.tv / www.staytunedtv.net / www.imdb.com - as per you statement "and we don't include them all." what factors decide which webseries are noted and which webseries are not?- Lew82

Delete - Lacks multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive Services Grid[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "Ephemeral project/technique. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG.". DePRODded with reason "Contest prod. Over two hundred results in Google Scholar with some of the articles cited hundreds of times." However, few of the articles seem to be about the ASG and those don't seem to be cited very heavily at all. Crusio (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Google searches appear to turn up only primary or trivial sources. Msnicki (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another article about a minor EU research project described in meaningless but rosy sounding bafflegab: an approach to achieving agility and adaptiveness in service-oriented architecture (SOA) using semantic services. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Clearly each paper nor buzzword combo does not deserve its own article. I was going to suggest putting it into the Sixth Framework Programme article, but that is just a redirect anyway to the overall Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development for the whole line of government waste, er, I mean "research" programmes. Not sure there is anything worth merging. I just checked, and the journal link given inthe article dead, although I found one that worked. The preprint is in English, not German, but full of the same buzzwords. The web site is still there, but not updated since 2007. I would say now just delete. Alas, there seem to be many other similar articles on one-shot projects and even Category:FP6 Projects. BEinGRID is less stubby, being the largest project evidently. AssessGrid only has website, ARGUGRID up for prod, Akogrimo only web site, I-maestro only has web site, Update (FP-6 Project) was a table but no source except moribund 2009 web site, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
undecided I am not sure what the standard for notability should be. I would expect the evidence for notability is what has been written about the work produced, not what has been written about the program as a program, This is analogous to the way we judge researchers in WP:PROF, where we do not ask that something need be written about a researcher as a person, just that it be written about their published work. With researchers, this is judged by the citations to their articles. Now, the standard is not the extremely weak GNG standard, for then any paper that had two or more references discussing the work substantially would be notable, any researcher producing such a paper would be notable, every research grant that produced such papers is notable, that every program of grants that leads to them is similarly notable, that every department and sub-epartmental program producing such papers is notable. (In general, not all the references to a paper discuss the work substantially; some will be no more than citations of all possible references, but some will have substantial discussions of the work. We normally do not analyze the references in such detail, but we could--I think in most fields about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 would be substantial.) So if we apply the GNG here, we'd get a result, which I-- and undoubtedly Crusio -- think is ridiculously broad. (I note that the guideline for books does accept this standard: any book with two or more substantial reviews in discriminating sources is notable. This could perhaps be justified by considering a book a more substantial work than an individual paper.) With researchers , using WP:PROF, we generally consider that the totality of references must be sufficient to show the research an authority in his subject. Essentially, we judge this by comparison with other researchers in the field, and we use such additional considerations as academic status, status of the institution,and status of the journals in which published and cited--the same criteria as used in the academic world for tenure decisions. It works: almost always , we find agreement here--the great majority of AfDs using WP:PROF reach a clear consensus. I do not know what we could use here as an equivalent. I do not even know whether we should aim for a broad or narrow inclusion: it would be possible to argue that broad inclusion would provide people with links to related work. (I prefer to say that broad inclusion would yield to excessive duplication, and the place for bringing together related work is in the article on the subject investigated.) What I think we need is a discussion on a notability standard, which would include a clear statement that it supersedes the GNG in both a positive and negative direction, and that these and the related AfDs be closed until we have such a standard. I know that at AfD the literal use of the GNG is usually used to justify deletion, but in actuality, as applied to anything where there is extensive published work, it leads to justification of extremely broad inclusion. (I have avoided arguing that way when it makes no sense to me, but I've certainly been tempted to use arguments like the above to show the absurdity of the GNG standard.) DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with DGG's thoughts. We do need a guideline here. As it is, many people appear to vote "keep" in this kind of debates solely on the grounds that a project has been mentioned a couple of times in academic publications (akin to citations to a researcher's work). It seems strange that our standards for projects (concerning, after all, a group of researchers) would be so much more lax than WP:PROF. As far as I can see, almost none of these research projects are notable, although their participants often are and their results may be useful to source/improves articles on those particular topics. --Crusio (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 09:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian C. Webb[edit]

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

Founder and CEO of a 7-month old technology blog. Unable to find references or news sources about him. Couldn't find references to the blog. All references in the article are to the company's website. Note: Ian Webb and Reel Geeks are common names, so I might have missed something while googling. Bgwhite (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks any major claim to notability. The few claims it does make are weaselly and unclear, i.e. "received the attention of [list of tech companies]". Several Times (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that he or his blog are notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of public relations journals[edit]

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

~~List contains only 1 entry that is not a redlink. Delete for the moment, re-create when or if more entries become available. At this point not very informative or helpful.~~ Crusio (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why does this rationale lead to deletion, Crusio?—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the barest of lists possible. There are no clear inclusion criteria, there is no discussion of the journals included (most of them appear to be non-notable), there are no sources, etc. There is nothing here that could make a list notable or even desirable. --Crusio (talk) 10:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could the list not be expanded? Could clear inclusion criteria not be devised? Could discussion of the journals not be added? Could sources not be found? And does it matter that individual items on a list are not notable? I'm not seeing anything that isn't fixable here.—S Marshall T/C 14:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redlinks are a valid function of lists which help us expand our content. Please see Primer of Public Relations Research which confirms that journals such as Public Relations Quarterly are respectable and merit such attention. Warden (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom. Per S. Marshall. --Crusio (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Much as I love the band ... anything notable here belongs in the main article, which would be a merge. except for the lack of sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of the Dandy Warhols' music in media[edit]

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

Merely a list of "in popular culture" references. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of this appears to be compiled with original research; none of the (2) references are significant. If you are a popular band then your music will be likely be replayed in different places. Unless someone has commented on anything specifically unusual or unique about the use of their music, this is just run-of-the-mill. Delete as original research, trivia, and listcruft. Them From Space 12:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. Of the above arguments, only OR is a sufficient reason to delete, and it's pretty obvious that some of the unsourced ones (e.g. use as VM theme song) are in fact correct. Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that listing every time a band's songs have been used in the media is appropriate content for an encyclopedia? How is this preferred over a short, prose summary in the main article (perhaps a few lines in the main article stating that the group, like most bands, has had its songs replayed on the television and in movies)? Would you extend this to say that we should have similar articles for other popular (but not legendary) bands? Does all of this information together really add up to something special, or is it just what you would expect for a band of their popularity? Them From Space 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the band's main article, preferably deleting anything used in a commercial or, um, a Counter-Strike fan video. These In Popular Culture sections get unwieldy enough as it is. Several Times (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ThemFromSpace, its all irrlevant, non enclopedic fluff. Ceoil 21:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. three relistings have brought us no closer to consensus. I have no personal opinion on the notability, but there just isn't consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonym (band)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability. Does not meet any of the topical notability guidelines for bands; local band plays weekly in a local nightclub, independently released one EP, which did not chart and article claims was not successful. Press coverage in support of local gigs. Does not meet general notability guidelines; references provided do not equate to significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, most trivial with some only barely mentioning the subject. Cind.amuse 10:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band has been featured on the radio twice and performs an average of 120 concerts a year. According to WP:BAND, bands should at least have a single or an album but the band has an EP consisting three singles with one more single released later. The EP was not commercially successful but their singles were smash hit on their concerts. Lastly, the references present on the article are reliable, although there are not many newspaper articles related to this band. With regards, Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{10:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment. The band appears to have local popularity, plays in a local club, and has garnered local press. The press garnered is not significant. The band has not charted with any albums or singles on any country's national music chart. They have not released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels. No national or international tours, no awards, no successful songs or albums. While a claim is made that the band has been featured on radio twice, reliable/independent sources have not been found to lend support or define the appearance, (i.e., half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network). While I thought a couple weeks might provide opportunity to establish notability, the criteria unfortunately has not been met yet. Possibly in the future. Cind.amuse 02:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I agree that the band has not recorded an album on a major label, in India there are only a few major record labels, I know only one of them i.e. Sony BMG. Only Bollywood artists work with Sony BMG leaving a few exceptions. And, India does not have any music chart for bands although there are music charts for Bollywood movie songs. And that’s why only bollywood artists get popular while bands do not get much popular. The band (Pseudonym) has performed one show in Ranchi, Jharkhand, India on 31st January, 2010 according to their concert list, which makes it a national tour. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{04:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
    - Comment. I can't rationalize the band's failure to record on a major or important indie label or inability to chart in India. The charts that I am familiar with off the top of my head are the Indipop Top 100, Desi Rock 100, and Mirchi Top 100. I'm sure there's more for different categories, including for movies. On another note, one gig does not a national tour make. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. These are mostly (99%) for bollywood songs/artists (Indian Pop Music/Songs written in Hindi). India actually doesnot have any proper chart for Indian Rock Music/Indian Rock Bands. Also, you are considering this reliable but not considering the artilces on daily broadsheet newspapers of India. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{15:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete No evidence of satisfying any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particualarly WP:GNG or WP:BAND. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that it does not satisfy all the guidelines but it does satisfy most of the guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:BAND and the sources can be found on the article's references section and further reading section. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{08:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Comment We've discussed the failure to meet the WP:GNG in great detail, but could you provide evidence that the subject meets just one of the topical notability guidelines for bands? Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. It does meet the first one - Reliable Sources. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{16:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment. This band was featured on the newspaper The News Today based in Dhaka, Bangladesh. You may check it out [30]. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
- I'm not sure what "featured" is supposed to mean in this context, but the band is mentioned in a few sentences in an article not primarily about them. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The write-up in the fifth paragraph is about them. Hopefully, the article now meets WP:GNG. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{14:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
    - Comment This source is not indicative of significant coverage to establish notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. There is nothing wrong about it, its a media (a broadsheet newspaper) in Bangladesh, a valid reliable source as per WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep The band has done one national tour, and has managed to get a whole paragraph of coverage in a newspaper published in another country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no evidence to support that the band has had a national tour. And one whole paragraph in a newspaper does not equate to significant coverage to establish notability according to the WP:GNG. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A click through of the sources show the band has received significant coverage, perhaps not sufficiently detailed, but from multiple independent reliable sources. Way past GNG, IMHO, but not yet to WP:BAND. This page needs improvement, not deletion. BusterD (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When sources do not "sufficiently detail" the band, this generally equates to a lack of significant coverage. In order to establish notability according to the notability guidelines for bands, the band must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. The band lacks coverage meeting this criteria. The article existed for several weeks in an attempt to offer the article creator more time to improve the article by providing references to establish notability, to no avail. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080826/jsp/entertainment/story_9741501.jsp and http://www.ilovekolkata.in/index.php/Nightlife/Pseudonym-Music-with-an-alternative-twist.html have detailed information about the band, there are other sources in which the band is mentioned on a paragraph or on a few lines. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{04:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local covers band. Coverage is trival local interest stuff, not significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The band has an EP, and there are articles on daily broadsheet newspapers in India. Also, there is one article on a daily broadsheet newspaper based in Bangladesh. You can check out the references and the further reading section. Regards. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{04:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
  - Comment. Again, the album, containing three songs did not chart and was not a success. And the articles about the band are rather peripheral and not significant in nature. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I couldnt find any chart for Indian Rock Bands. Their songs were sucess during their live concerts. Guitarist^{(talk|contributions)}_{16:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Weak keep. Band has one article devoted to it. A couple more-than-casual mentions elsewhere. Seems likely to generate more. 78.26 (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. The consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in significant detail at reliable independent sources, and that the content should be merged with the 'Final' article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn[edit]

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

a sporting event that gets no coverage outside kickboxing sources. nothing in gnews and all google reveals is sources connected to kickboxing and listings. being on youtube or televised or having notable fighters does not grant automatic notability. fails WP:GNG. also nominating K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm for same reasons. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm was part of the K-1 organizations series of regional events typically meant as part of the qualification process for the annual K-1 Grand Prix. Plenty of notable fighters such as Artur Kyshenko, Gago Drago, Jorgen Kruth Clifton Brown (who was also involved in a WMC - the highest ranked promotion in Muay Thai - world title fight). Deletion of this page would set a precedent for the removal of more K-1 pages all of which were created over two years to complete the overall picture of the worlds greatest ever kickboxing promotion. K-1 Europe Grand Prix 2009 in Tallinn while not full of the same level of participants is still an important development for kickboxing in Eastern Europe as many tournaments have been held in the Baltic. jsmith006 (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2011

could you please evidence of third party sources to establish notability? Secondly WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Part of K-1 world wide regional tournaments, the elite kickboxing organization for last 20 years. Links from third party non kickboxing related Estonian online news site [31], from Estonian daily newspaper [32]. Link from third party non kickboxing related Swedish sports news [33]. Also should be noted, kickboxing related media covered the event from Japan to Poland, just to establish the world wide recognition of the events. Also in consideration should be taken the user's extreme prejudice about the subject, continuously nominating numerous articles over the last week.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but 3 third party sources for 2 articles is hardly significant coverage. WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. "kickboxing related media covered the event from Japan to Poland, just to establish the world wide recognition of the events" does not prove it is notable outside the kickboxing world, Wikipedia clearly requires significant 3rd party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry, you asked third party and i gave you third party. Feel like telling me which new articles you gonna nominate tomorrow, cmon you can tell, just for fun. I think you are at 25 total pages right now, or it might be more...Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Libstar - he just gave you "evidence of third party sources to establish notability?" and you are now saying that this is not enough evidence. How much is enough third party sources? 3? 5? 10? What is the point of providing evidence if you say its not good enough anyway? You still haven't given me any examples of sources that you think are good enough for kickboxing - it doesn't have to be K-1 it can be anything kickboxing event related. jsmith006 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2011

many articles have been deleted if they've had 1,2 or 4 sources. the depth and breadth of coverage is an important factor. I know you 2 are pushing very hard for a series of kickboxing events to be included in WP, bu you have to acknowledge that these series of articles are very weak for notability for Wikipedia as per WP:N and WP:GNG, a strong keep is reserved for when lots of sources of indepth third party sources can be found. this is not true here. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering PART of my question but can you please give me an example of what you think is a good kickboxing source? Perhaps you could mention an existing page on wikipedia - you could use MMA if that is too hard. In terms of us pushing hard, it's also obvious that you are pushing even harder to delete these pages as demonstrated by the huge wave of recent nominations, meaning that we are spending more time arguing with you than actually creating pages. Also the events we want to keep are all part of notable promotions IN THE WORLD OF KICKBOXING - I am not adding random organizations or amateur events from the local leisure centre but the top ones from across the world many involving multiple internationally regonised kickboxers, world title fights and grand prixs. All of these events have also been successful enough to have a series of events. jsmith006 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2011

notable in the wo

rld of kickboxing or any sport is not the same as notable in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your major claim of no hits in gnews is been relatively easy to debunk. You seem be be running out of that as well now, on your new deletions, started adding pages with only 2 hits in gnews. How about that of pushing hard to get pages deleted.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can have 5 or 10 gnews hits and not be notable and be deleted. Trivial mentions and non-independent sources don't count. Please see WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now GNews isn't an indicator of notability – strange you were using that argument in SuperLeague and SuperKombat that if it didn’t appear then it wasn’t notable proving that you don’t actually search very hard for evidence when nominating (at least on those pages). Now 2,3, 100 G News hits doesn’t matter because they are kickboxing resources and therefore not notable in terms of Wikipedia "Kickboxing is not notable" – meaning that you must think almost 100% of all kickboxing articles are not relevant (maybe Jean Claude Van Damme is okay but that’s only because he was in some movies). I'm really struggling to think what we can do because it seems there's some sort of invisible wall here that prevents any pages being created for this subject matter. jsmith006 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2011

gnews is an indicator of notability, as it finds many print and online sources. if a very low count in gnews and nothing independent is found in google it is likely not to meet WP:GNG. you aretrying to hide the fact that this event gets very little independent coverage in an attempt to save this article. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Lipstar) are you trying to hide the fact that this is a notable event in kickboxing because it has not been in USA Today (the world is a lot bigger than America you know). Are you also trying to hide your bias against martial arts behind WP this and WP that because your not doing a very good job of it as displayed by your simply amazing number of deletion nominations over the past week - do you get some sort of award for 'Deletor of the Week'.jsmith006 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2011

Comment I'm not seeing significant coverage and it still seems like routine sports reporting to me. The event also had a definite lack of notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now you bringing it up that it had lack of notable fighters, over here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006 you guys said that notability could not be even established with notable fighters on card. You guys are something else...Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I mentioned it because an event having notable fighters is the argument you always use, although I don't buy it. I think your argument falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(To Pap) while there aren't many notable fighters on the Tallinn event you have failed to acknowledge the K-1 Rumble of the Kings 2009 in Stockholm which has Clifton Brown, Artur Kyshenko, Gago Drago. You also fail to see that events are actually the most important thing for a promotion in kickboxing (or any other sport for that matter) and the contestants involved. Without any events or any fighters how can a martial arts event bee notable (and by the way I am talking about events with top fighters and K-1 as a whole). I know you are biased against events pages from our first SuperLeague discussion and you would get rid of the UFC pages. You also said you wouldn't try it with K-1 because of the amount of opposition it would get - leading me to believe this was due to the notablity of the organization and any associated events. However, I commend you for the fact you are willing to listen to arguments rather than leap in with a delete just because Libstar has (which is what some of his chums are doing - I'm expecting them soon). You also haven't seemed to notice the methods involved by Libsar (or are ignoring them) - do you think it is acceptable to target a large number of pages in this way without notifying the authors? Forget about wiki rules for a moment because we are human not robots and tell me in your heart of hearts do you think this is okay and do you think wikipedia is a good advert for new editors in sports such as kickboxing and mma. It's okay guys you can come and create 1 or 2 pages provided its in the New York Times or USA today. Btw I know you haven't nominated this page jsmith006 (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2011

I didn't even notice the Stockholm nomination (I'll blame it on the late hour). As far as UFC articles, for example, go--I bow to the will of the majority, even when I think their interpretation of WP policy is wrong. My concern is that articles are being put up for AfD faster than I can do my due diligence on them. I also think it would be nice to satisfy this issue, one way or the other, before putting up more articles. Frankly, I'm tired of seeing (and making) the same arguments over and over. Papaursa (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Pap that these recent amount of nominations is absolutely bonkers - but I also have to say (yes once again) that you cannot use the same sources in kickboxing that you can in major sports and some sort of leeway must be allowed. I remember someone saying (not a kickboxing guy) that interpretation of the sources must depend on the popularity of the sport in question (sorry maybe someone can refresh or maybe all this debating is making me hallucinate and I must have imagined it). C'mon Pap surely you can't expect kickboxing in Europe to be covered by the New York Times - even boxing matches in Europe (aside from the Klitscho-Haye fight but prob cus Haye is such a douchebag - sorry Haye fans) aren't seen as big news in the States because it's not in America. I am also concerned that the chips seem to be stacked against the editors - I haven't seen any pages critising mass nominations and only 'it is civil to notify'. I honestly think that if the bigger kickboxing pages go (SuperLeague, SuperKombat, K-1 - not the Mohammed Ouali one that defo deserved deleting) then what's going to stop all of the kickboxing pages from going including fighter articles because big American newspapers aren't covering the sport. Then it's going to be MMA as well (which is already happening). Anyway, at least we agree on some things. Cheers. jsmith006 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2011

Also, while it's on my mind how come Sherdog is seen as an acceptable source for MMA while Headkicklegend and Liverkick are not for kickboxing? jsmith006 (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2011

Actually, I've seen it debated whether or not sherdog is a reliable source, but it is the de facto source for MMA fighters' records. There are two other things that come to mind right now. First, according to WP:RS, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." So feel free to use kickboxing or MMA magazines, not just internet sources. Second, it would help your case if the articles contained something besides just the results. Personally, I think world championship bouts (for top tier organizations) also help make a case for an event being notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciate this kinda discussion from you Papaursa.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 19:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered in reliable, independent sources. Forums that are currently cited are do not qualify as such. I found a brief mention of the event here, but this mention of the event that does not even resemble an article is insufficient for notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regional Grand Prix held by K-1, the largest kickboxing org in the world. This makes it notable -- WölffReik (talk) 13:61, 20 July 2011

"the largest kickboxing org in the world" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. As someone who knows absolutely nothing about kickboxing specifically, I'm a little out gunned here. If the event was noteworthy because of its implications in a qualifying for a more important tournament, it belongs there, or merged with other qualifiers into one article like the 2010 NBA Playoffs. (If the NBA doesn't deserve a whole article for each round of the playoffs, I don't think anyone can argue kickboxing does) If the event didn't have implications in a more important tournament, and it wasn't a title match of some sort, it doesn't deserve an article. (This appears to be how the more mainstream sports work things out. Important tournaments get an article and the final event of the tournament gets its own articles in addition to that; everything else is looked up elsewhere online. That the current practice for the NFL, the NBA and the NHL.) (Damn MLB refusing me my clean sweep) --Djohns21 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On further inspection, this is also the standard in Tennis, and Golf, so it is also done for individual sports as well. --Djohns21 (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reslisting comment These K-q1 listings have been some of the worst discussions I have seen recently. Folks, we need discussion of sources and references to guidelines, not ad hom attacks and unevidenced assertions of notability. Simple question from a potential closing admin, what are the sources, and are they any good? If someone could do some analysis on that it will resolve this nicely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by User:Djohns21. This event fails every part of WP:EVENT. If Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's certainly not a sports section. Which is not to say we shouldn't include articles on sports, sporting personalities and sporting events; with this in mind, I'd like to discuss common practice. I have participated in several of these kickboxing and MMA discussions, and I'm convinced we have an unusually large amount of coverage of these events relative to other team and individual sports. It's a rare team sport event which garners sufficient notability for its own article. In individual competitions, like golf or tennis, the tournament seems the basis of coverage, and a vast majority of those are still redlinks. As I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing, I don't see a similar fascination with individual boxing cards I see in this content area (K-1, MAX, It's Showtime, WAKO Euro, WAKO World, etc.). In the 113 cases boxing matches or cards are covered with their own page, I see significant (if sometimes incomplete) citation. I'll not claim an exhaustive search. This listed event doesn't by itself warrant mention because it lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. In this case routine sports results coverage can't be used to assert notability. I'll grant Wikipedia should have coverage of these events, but coverage proportionate to their relative importance, and coverage proportionate by common practice. BusterD (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Beanibazar_Upazila#Educational_institutions. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Mathiura Government Model Primary School[edit]

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

No reference and failed notability; a related article was already deleted here ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:WPSCH/AG#N. The primary school is already listed at Beanibazar_Upazila#Educational_institutions, and is unsourced. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beanibazar_Upazila#Educational_institutions which experience shows will inhibit recreation. TerriersFan (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperKombat[edit]

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

Non notable promotions company, in fact this may well be CSD A7 as not seeing anything of significance. Fails WP:GNG (also nominating List of SuperKombat events) Mtking (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both no reliable third party coverage. For it to be in WP, there must be evidence of wider coverage than simply the fighting world. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World Grand Prix II event was broadcasted in Eurosport, which shows that this promotion has some importance. There are also hundreds of reports in credible websites, that deal with martial arts. I personally don't understand why there's always a proposal for deletion in pages concerning kickboxing organizations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly notable promotion with highly notable fighters. It's last event featured an inter-continental title fight and was broadcast by Eurosport. WölffReik (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable fighters and being broadcast does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article and list There doesn't appear to be reliable sourcing of the event by third-party entities. I'm unsure if broadcasting on a network supports notability (i.e. nothing is said about this specifically on WP:SPORTSEVENT). However, it does say this about what a notable series or game is:

A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved.

The current list contains one game, and it is basically full of match outcomes and no substantive content, which WP:SPORTSEVENT requires:

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats.

All in all, the event needs better coverage in independent sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several articles on Superkombat from Romanian sports newspaper "Pro Sport" http://www.prosport.ro/cautare?in=prosport&q=Superkombat. Moreover here is an article from historical newspaper "Libertatea" covering a Superkombat event http://www.libertatea.ro/detalii/articol/stefan-leko-catalin-morosanu-gala-arte-martiale-constanta-protv-local-kombat-345410.html. Finally this is an article from another newspaper, "Adevarul", which seems to mention the promotion http://www.adevarul.ro/locale/tulcea/Tulcea-_Victorii_pe_banda_la_Campionatul_national_de_kempo_0_475152639.html. Here is also a report from Eurosport Romania which includes an analysis of the promotion http://tv.eurosport.ro/fightclub/storynews_sto2798444.shtml

There are even more but I think that's enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as promotional and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix I, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix II demonstrate that this page's creator was promoting, uploading a promotional poster of the second event and using it to illustrate the infobox on an event which hadn't yet occurred, hence promotion. User has since been blocked for running a sockfarm. Since this page also lacks sources which aren't routine sports event news, delete. BusterD (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentifact[edit]

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

This is essentially a failed neologism. It was intended, as best I can understand, as a catch-all that covered the generic class to which sociological concepts such as mores, taboos and norms belong as well as religious dogma and memes. There is no evidence that this was ever accepted beyond the paper of one writer. The use of the term in ethnomathematics is unrelated to the use in sociology, as I understand it. So Essentially, it fails WP:V and WP:N both. HominidMachinae (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music, and Art. This describes it as "A constituent of culture that exists primarily in the minds of the adherents of that culture. As a classificatory concept, the term mentifact overlaps with covert culture, or aspects of culture that are not directly observable ...". We don't have an article on covert culture yet so this seems to be a reasonable start on this notable concept. Warden (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree that the article is in sorry shape, but this is in no way a "failed neologism"; rather it is a Term of art in the fields of semiotics and folklore. For instance, google scholar gives over 400 papers in which this concept is used: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mentifact&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to keep, although there is also an evident need to discuss the article title, so I would suggest that this be discussed on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's Hanging Order[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has faced two AfD's in the past- one ended in no consensus, another ended in an overturned deletion. The document in question has no historical significance whatsoever, and the only sources in the article either provide background (i.e., the sources aren't related to the document) or provide a translation. I'm sure that Lenin sent many telegrams throughout his life. Sure, some of them were probably orders to kill some people- how is this one special? It isn't. Some will probably claim that it's mentioned in numerous sources, but these sources will not have the document used as a subject- they will just use the telegram as a source itself, just like thousands of other documents made by Lenin which are similarly not notable are also used as primary sources. Slon02 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, same as before. Highly publicized document giving a good example of tactics employed by Lenin, sources seem to be reasonable. I still recommend moving the article to Hanging order, which seems to be more common (see searches linked in previous AfD).

P.S. Last AfD was overrun by a sock farm - even started by a sock.

--Sander Säde 07:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The title of this article is POV. The intent of this article is POV. The content of this article, whether it is encyclopedia worthy at all, well that we can debate. I'm not going to opine on that at this point; this is regarded as a "smoking gun" document by conservative historians conclusively proving that Lenin was a big bad meanie. Left wing historians regard it as axiomatic that there were summary executions and "examples made" by both sides during the bloody Russian Civil War. Is this one document "notable" because conservative historians at the Library of Congress have given it a catchy name? Does the fact that one document has been published in multiple sources excuse its use as a POV tool in a Wikipedia article? Might not this article be given a more appropriate name and broader scope? Lots of good questions. It would not be difficult to write and source a piece on White atrocities in the Russian Civil War. Or, for that matter, Bolshevik atrocities in the Russian Civil War. Why this one document? Carrite (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The document has huge historical significance as the first Lenin's order of the kind, which led to creation of the policy of Red Terror. Hence the specific name for the letter. It is quoted in almost any book about Bolshevik repressions. These books do not quote thousands of other letters by Lenin, maybe only one or two. Another similarly notable letter by Lenin was his letter to comrade Kursky that led to creation of famous article 58. Biophys (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it led to the start of Red Terror, wouldn't that have been mentioned in either the article on Red Terror or on the order's article itself? Could you provide a source that verify such historical significance, because clearly it's not mentioned in the article. --Slon02 (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is secret letter by Lenin most widely quoted in relation to the policy of Red Terror (see for example, Black Book of Communism, page 72; book Communism by Pipes, etc.). Why can't we have an article about this letter? What's the problem? Biophys (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, there is the blatant POV pushed by that book- the criticism of it takes up the largest part of that article! Carrite previously brought up how the title of the article itself is POV, as is its intent. However, the main point here is simple. WP:GNG is very clear that there must be significant coverage- "more than a trivial mention". If it's simply quoted as part of a larger picture, then there is no way that you can consider that to be significant coverage in that source. I stand by my argument that this fails GNG. --Slon02 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It tells: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" [34]. Yes, that's exactly the case here (did you read the books I mentioned?). There are many secondary RS (books) that describe and quote this letter in detail. Biophys (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe rename. There are certainly reliable sources that analyze this and discuss its background enough to indicate notability: [35][36][37]. Given the availability of English sources, I would presume there are more sources in Russian, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a POV exercise in its present form. This is a document that could be aptly put into play in an article on the Red Terror, but as a free standing article, this is essentially a political piece. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article name is itself POV --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People may not like the conclusions of the Library of Congress, but their coverage of the telgraph is certainly an indepdendent, indepth and 3rd party source. The same with the BBC program. It is not a POV name if it is wideply applied outside of wikipedia. There is a reason why there is an article Boston Massacre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Planty of reliable sources are available. No objection to moving to Hanging Order, but the title is certainly not POV, it mere states who gave the order. Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 09:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halis Aydemir[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient indicia of notability to support a finding of notability for this academic. The article has been tagged for notability since 2009.Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have you checked Turkish sources? Do you even read Turkish? Until we have someone who is fluent in Turkish see if this professor is notably covered in Turkis sources we should keep the article. Is there a way we can get an inquiry on this matter in the Turkey project page of wikipedia.?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a viable keep !vote. "There may be sources to support notability but I haven't seen them" isn't a reason to keep an article. The subject doesn't meet our notability requirements. We have tons of Turkish academics for whom we do have reliable sources -- see Category:Turkish academics. He isn't one of them. And his "accomplishments", such as they are, as reflected in the article don't meet our requirements for academics. Our rule isn't "notability requirements are suspended for people from non-English-speaking-countries."--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing presented in the article would indicate a pass of WP:PROF, even without the separate issue of whether it's adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that there "may exist" some sources in Turkish is not a viable argument for keeping the article - such sources need to be actually produced. GBooks and GoogleScholar searches in English produce almost nothing of relevance. As D.E. observes above, even if all information currently given in the article is accepted at face value, nothing there indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would be unusual for anyone to have achieved the standards of WP:PROF so early in an academic career (PhD in 2004 and associate professorship since 2009) and there's nothing in the article or that I can find elsewhere to indicate that Halis Aydemir is an exception to that general trend. Turkish uses the Roman alphabet, so searching for the subject's name as written in the article would find Turkish as well as English sources if they existed. There's no need to understand a language to see that Google Books only finds books by the subject (two of the three being self-published via Lulu.com) and Wikipedia mirrors, that Google Scholar finds no citations to those books, and that Google News, which has wide coverage of the Turkish media, finds nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with zero cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Medical University of South Carolina. Courcelles 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Catalyst (Medical University of South Carolina)[edit]

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

I can't find sufficient coverage or other indicia of this newspaper to satisfy our notability criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I was only able to find a few mentions of the paper in local SC sources listing publications. The only substantial source I was able to find was in a book, Insiders' Guide to Charleston. It's a brief blurb that gives some basic info about the staff and circulation, and it describes it as "highly respected among members of the medical profession." Still, I'm not convinced this one source suffices for the subject. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Medical University of South Carolina/ leave as a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Medical University of South Carolina. This is notable as a subtopic of a major public university. There aren't enough independent sources to perhaps merit a separate article, but the information is useful and verifiable enough to be a section in the university's article. Steven Walling • talk 17:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. It seems to make most sense to include this information along with the University article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Medical University of South Carolina. The article would fit better with the university's page than take space as an stub article. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Courcelles 08:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management & Engineering[edit]

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

This is a constituent school of Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies which appears to lack significant independent coverage, and as such it is not notable. wctaiwan (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article's style is an eyesore and doesn't provide anything encyclopedic and would do better on the Narsee Monjee Institute's page. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW - WP:NOT/WP:NEO. slakr^\ talk / 16:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saugie[edit]

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

From the declined PROD reason, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Unsourcable and non-notable neologism."

It may be the last name of some people, but a quick search shows that on Wikipedia, there are no people with a last name of "Saugie". This page is not likely to expand, which leads me to ask for its deletion. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is this article about "Saugie" a surname, or the word "soggy"? Or is it a joke or mild trolling, or a contribution from an editor who doesn't really understand how to write even a start class article? I'm not sure, but I do think it should be deleted as non-notable. By the way, I deleted an inappropriate shout-out to a Wikipedia editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest thing this page comes to is a poor disambiguation page. None of these items appear to be notable, and some of them aren't even verifiable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be mostly an unsourced dictionary definition of a neologism. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It probably should have been CSDed, but wasn't. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a random compendium of crap. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeramie Kling[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician, unnotable outside the band he's in. Contested redirect, speedy, and prod. No significant coverage outside the group, no references, little independent coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i will begin by offering links of his relevance

Crush Drums (his drum companies website)
Studio interview (about his studio)
studio reference
from his music label for the absence
Infernaeon (another signed band he plays in)
yet another studio reference (about his studio)

(all of his videos for a both bands)

So I strongly disagree with this mike guy. not notable according to whom? this man is quite popular in many circles. I think that i have provided sufficient evidence of my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herehaveablast (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry forgot my signature here it is.....I am new to this --Herehaveablast (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through your sources:

Crush Drums (his drum companies website)

This source is not independent of the subject. Articles on Wikipedia require sources that are independent of the subject to support notability so as to avoid bias or language that is promotional.

Studio interview (about his studio)

This source is acceptable, but it comes from a magazine that specializes in death metal in Florida State, so its scope is limited.

studio reference

I'm a little dubious of this source because of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees.

from his music label for the absence

His label has a financial interest in Kling's success, so this source is not independent.

Infernaeon (another signed band he plays in)

Also not independent for obvious reasons.

yet another studio reference (about his studio)

Kling produced an album for this band, so their reviews of him cannot possibly be independent, either.

(All of the videos of his music)

...are not good sources because we cannot judge notability based on the fact that he plays music or has it on YouTube.

So, unless you can provide sources that are independent of the subject that provide in-depth coverage of Kling, I support deletion of the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make Jeramie Kling a redirect to The Absence. I'm the one who removed the BLPPROD yesterday, and I did a smidge of cleanup on the article, but though there are sources enough to save him from BLPPROD, there just aren't sufficient sources that I can find that establish any actual notability. Most of the news mentions are passing references to his name in relation to coverage of the band he's in, and as Jethrobot points out, the mostly-PR sources suggested above also aren't useful in establishing notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how many pages do you need? you MUST HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER IN MIND............ two are notable then you discredited them.........just because you DONT LIKE METAL doesnt mean there is no relevance.. here is another link to a wikipedia page where he is mentioned. [tide] --Herehaveablast (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herehaveablast, have you read our policies on general notability, musician notability, and reliable sources? If you haven't, please do - they will probably answer some of your questions about why people are using the reasons that they are here. Also, please remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors - it's unlikely that anyone is doing anything because they don't like metal; it's more likely that they're doing it because they think it helps Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as A7. Two sentences, no references, no demonstration of notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well guys its really not worth the argue I suppose. You all have superior computer knowledge and a clear agenda. So I will not be able to come back against it. unfortunately you people run your website like this and I am shoked about this.I have always gone to wikipedia always. I will not be making that same mistake. He will have his own page one day. until then do what you must. have a good one.

--70.126.127.134 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nominator left a comment supporting a speedy keep (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyehwa High School[edit]

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

Four-sentence article about a Korean high school whose only reference is a web site in Korean. Seduisant (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the long-standing agreement at WP:NHS. High schools do not need evidence of current notability, but only need to be verifiable to exist. That "website in Korean" is the school's own website. In case that's insufficient:

Student from the high school represented in a gameshow
Hyehwa HS student was a winner of an essay contest independent of the school I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I, Jethrobot has summed it up pretty well. We have a solid consensus that high schools are assumed to be notable. Also note that verifiability does not require that sources be in English. LadyofShalott 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A stubbed article sourced to a non-English website has never been an appropriate reason or rationale for deletion. It's a rationale for improving the article. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the three editors other who have also recommended the article be kept. If consensus says that articles about secondary schools should be kept, then that applies to all such schools worldwide, not just those in English speaking countries. References in other languages are acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keeping articles on foreign high schools even if sourcing and writeup are shaky helps to counter systemic bias. Raymie (t • c) 17:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I wasn't aware of WP:NHS when I proposed this, and would retract the AfD suggestion if I knew how. Sorry for the mix-up. --Seduisant (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociofact[edit]

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

Per WP: Not a dictionary St8fan (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term was coined in the 1950s, and a Google Book search shows that this term has been discussed and analyzed many times in sociological literature for nearly six decades. Cullen328 (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP: Not a dictionary. Warden (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well the my google searches don't turn up anything that allows me to give this any history or context. The book results seems similar as they seem only to define the termSt8fan (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Value of Sociofact Analysis for Business Agility seems to be a good detailed source. Warden (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: definition/etymology-only (i.e. WP:DICTDEF) of an infrequently used term (essentially a failed neologism). No indication of "significant coverage" (as opposed to mere rare usage, or definition). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DICDEF of a term coined by one person and not covered directly and in detail by secondary sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 15:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User talk:TreasuryTag. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found one apparently independent, reliable secondary source, and I added it (along with a statement citing it) to the article just now. I'm not going to try to argue that this one source is sufficient to save this article, but please at least be aware of it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Julian Huxley. There is no harm in sending people to the one place where the word is used. The word can be added to Wiktionary if people think it is important. In related news, Mentifact should probably be treated similarly. --Djohns21 (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Cullen has it right here — this term, as is the case with Mentifact, originated six decades ago and has gained currency among sociologists as a cursory perusal of Google indicates. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the concept being slung by Francis Celoria in AN INTRODUCTION TO A BOOK PUBLISHED IN 1992 BY ROUTLEDGE. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Hansen makes use of the concept in ANOTHER BOOK, this published in 2001. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders and Becker take a more introductory approach to the idea in A 1956 BOOK, Societies Around the World. And so on... Carrite (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So here's the question: is this a dictionary definition of a word which is of itself insufficient for treatment as an article? Or is this a stub of an article on a fundamental concept of sociology? I'm advocating Keep based on my perception that it is the latter. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't know if this concept is fundamental to sociology, but it's certainly widely employed. See e.g. over 150 hits on google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=sociofact&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 . The article is short but improvable, and the concept seems rich enough that an improved article would be far more than a dictionary definition. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As I'm reading over the sources in this AfD, and 150+ found in Google Scholar, I am having trouble extracting the meaning of the word as it is used in the context of these articles. I am concerned about whether it means the same thing as Huxley's original definition in the 1950s. The fact that the term is used is sociology is clear enough, but whether these sources could actually be used to provide any meaningful information about this subject is questionable to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Point taken. I meant the sources to establish notability rather than as potential references for the article itself. I think that the fact that they don't necessarily mean the same thing by it as Huxley meant shows that the article belongs here, and has at least the potential to be more than just a definition of the word, as it seems from the literature to be a complex concept. I also think that this is a reason not to redirect the article to Julian Huxley, as proposed above. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: if sources neither cover the topic in sufficient depth to allow us to ascertain "the meaning of the word" nor to act as "potential references for the article itself", then how can they have sufficient depth to confer notability? I would have thought that the former would be a prerequisite for the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

attempt at answer it seems to me that this would happen with any term of art. most of the references using it would be written and read by people who know what it means, and thus would not define it. the bare fact that there are a lot of them and that they're reliable, authoritative sources would establish the notability of the concept. i would hazard a guess that totalitarianism (I just happen to be reading Eichmann in Jerusalem) or myocardial infarction, to pick two fairly random examples, would be like this. most sources that use the terms wouldn't define them, but the fact that they're used a lot by the right people establishes notability and the fact that one can't divine the definition from the sources establishes encyclopedicity. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:Notability requires "that sources address the subject directly in detail". Mere usage is not significant coverage and so does not establish notability (whether the people so using are the right, wrong or left people). I would suggest that large numbers of books have been written specifically on the subject of 'totalitarianism' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and a large number of medical journal articles and textbook chapters have been written specifically on the subject of 'myocardial infarction' (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Brunswick Scottish Cultural Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my previous nomination. coverage merely confirms it holds events. fails WP:ORG. no attempt has been made at referencing the article since the last AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing to say that this organization is notable. On the other hand the information on the history of Scots in eastern Canada is interesting and could be the basis of an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of sources about incoming members and local-coverage events, as well as listings in directories, but I agree with LibStar that this doesn't reach WP:ORG notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions. All could find on both Yahoo! and Google was NB Scots website, doesn't spell much notability for this article. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taobao. and redirect. Courcelles 08:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taobao Mall[edit]

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

See Talk:Taobao#Merge. Tomchen1989 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnecessary split from Taobao. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taobao as the content has already been merged via the above talk discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per I Jethrobot. --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by past population (United Nations)[edit]

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

according to WP:NOT#STATS article should not be included Sehmeet singh (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I'd hate to see this one go. The information provided is valuable and perhaps difficult to find without extensive searching and perhaps personal tabulations. Whether or not the information was derived from statistical data is unknown from the article. The article lacks verifiable source of a secondary and tertiary nature. The article is long but thorough, I'm sure. (e.g. Hey! They left our country off the list.). It also appears to be original research from the scant information we have regarding its sources. I'm going for the wildcard with this one ...... Wikipedia:IAR. =) --User:Warrior777 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is poorly sourced... because it just has a single secondary source (the United Nations Population Division) which is both prestigious and authoritative. In fact, its extensive tables have not been written by hand at all (which could have easily derived into potential typing errors), but instead they have been macro-generated and massively dumped from the cited or referenced UN Excel spreadsheet into the Wikipedia table format (as I meant in the corresponding edit summary). And so this means that literally 100% of their content is verifiable.

Even the regional and (sub)continental subtotals were directly taken from the UN figures (although I decided to place them in independent smaller tables for clarity reasons), unlike this similar article that I originally created in January 2009, in which I myself had to perform an automatic addition of such data (from USCB estimates).

The only things I added to it were the average annual growth, as was later suggested by user Mightymights. However, that doesn't represent an original research, unless you think that relative simple standard mathematical calculations such as the exponential function or logarithms constitute OR.

By the way, here you can see the article's first version, without the yearly changes.

Regards from Argentina :-)

MaxBech1975 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Transwiki. This is useful sourced information. But I am not sure that it is an encyclopedia article. If a better home, preferably hosted by Wikimedia can be found fine. If not keeping it is probably the best course of action. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from WP This kind of raw data just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Better move to some other space. Or else provide a link to the original table with the UN. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : useful article. Mightymights (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was posted on the talk page, i copied it here. I am neutral at this point in discussion, as im not familiar with policy on articles made up primarily of data like this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of countries by past and future population - Although I should preface my !vote with "Userfy and engage the editors of the aforementioned in how best to Merge". I believe also this info should be 'selectively' merged into each countries Article as, upon random checking, most seem to use the CIA World Factbook only as a cite for their current populations, and make no mentions of their past population. This info could provide a wealth of cites for all sorts of articles, and I would not like to loose it. Right now it is a datadump. To the Article Creator: Please, get in touch with the folks at Wikipedia:Bots. You obviously have a talent, they can/will help you to develop it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR wikipedia is not for lists of any type. WP:NOTSTATS, as mentioned above, applies too!

@-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... of ANY type ??? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.". This information is exactly the sort of content that one would find in a gazetteer and so is perfectly within the scope of Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As justifiable as other lists of sourced data. The arguments for deletion amounts in the end to the strange, " WP is not for lists of any type," which is clearly against policy . DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines. Blatant self-promotion. References quoted are mostly from companies/organisations linked to the person. Credibility of the statement "World's first Web Designer" highly doubtful.The organisation which gave her this award is not a credible one. — Finemann (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No where in the article does it say "World's first web designer" -- This nominations seems misleading... Mkdw ^talk 03:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The are at least four WP:RS references (full articles about her, including two from The Hindu) within the article and quite a few more on the gnews search linked above, with coverage in newspapers of at least four different countries. —SpacemanSpiff 19:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles appear about a lot of people in The Hindu. All those people don't deserve a Wikipedia article. — Finemann (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hindu is the most widely read English language newspaper in India, and has been published since 1878. It is indisputably a reliable source. Accordingly, your argument appears weak to me. That being said, we usually require more than one source to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient to pass "WP:General notability guideline" - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 07:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is not stating the facts correctly, when claiming the article calls her the "World's first Web Designer". Actually, it says she is "one of the youngest award winning web designers in the world", a much less extraordinary claim. To me, the coverage in The Hindu, the Gulf Times and the Arab News establishes notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I had long forgotten about this article, but I would say the article is mostly out of date rather than its notability status having changed since its first AfD nomination. Also I found an interesting article from June 2011 which shows she's still making headlines -- apparently she has her own company now. Mkdw ^talk 03:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CNN-IBN is a very notable & independent source in India. Should keep - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Comment I've have been doing some research on the article. I'm restating the major points from the article:

"She has been noted as one of the youngest award winning web designers in the world". This is only cited by one obscure reference (which is a personal blog) and not by The Hindu

The "Association of American Webmasters" who conferred her the title of the "World's youngest Web Designer" is not at all a notable institution. Their only representation on the internet is a website, which is poorly managed and designed for such an organisation.

The organisations that she reportedly joined/created has not had any significant coverage on the media. And Cybrosys technologies do not report of any collabration with Ms.Suresh on their website.

The National Award she received is absolutely not the highest award for children in India. And interestingly that award was presented to 38 children that year. So we ought to have 38 different Wikipedia articles right? Awards like the Bravery award are much more important and have received more media coverage than the award she received.

The real fun part are the other awards that she reportedly received. The major reference for the tabulated list of awards is this website of her own school which blatantly promotes her. Has any Wikipedian who has voted to keep the article researched on any single award she received? Here is some material for fun. I guess this is more than enough to prove the notability of the awards she received.

Doesn't all this make a good reason to delete the article? Anybody with basic knowledge about the media and the associated bureaucracy in India wouldn't stand for this article. Somebody just wanted to promote an ordinary girl. Well I might be wrong and Wikipedia admins might decide to keep the article after all. What would the article be about? A girl who designed the website of her school? That her father is a lawyer and mother a home-maker? And that she received a not-so-famous National Award? Well I could write a better article on myself! Seriously I though that Wikipedia was about quality and not quantity in articles. I hope that my arguments would be taken in good spirit. Thank you! — Finemann (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The tone of your comment seems like you are taking it more personally - rather than from a neutral point of view. Pls keep in mind that all discussions in AfD should be from a neutral point of view. BTW, I have checked the references and studied about her before voting for a Keep - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry if my tone sounded personal to you. Anyway why should I take it personal? But I still don't understand your rationale in keeping the article. Is being featured on popular Indian media your only reason to keep the article? And you say that you have studied the references. Did you read any article on The Hindu about her? If you did you would've noticed that all of the articles were in the local edition of the newspaper and came under the regional section. If at all the article were to be kept, do you have any idea about the amount of copyediting that the article would require to make it neutral? More that half of the claimed awards don't even exist (or at least I couldn't find any references for them). Again, I request you to reconsider your vote regarding article. Regards! — Finemann (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - if you are well aware of which claims are verifiable and which are not - then please mark them as ^{[dubious – discuss]}. Someone from WikiProject India or WikiProject Kerala shall take care of this. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persu V3[edit]

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

See WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." The only independent source is Dane Muldoon of Autoblog Green, who has written several puff pieces based wholly on company press releases and softball interviews with company spokesmen. The lack of sustained coverage from serious media means this fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per proposer; this is a clear case. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Due to WP:Crystal and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). On the other hand, interested editors may be able to craft an article on the company that is designing this car, namely Persu Ventures. Not that I'm saying that such an article would meet notability standards. --Noleander (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advance-logistics[edit]

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another EU techie research project, that promises great improvements in .... ant colonies: The ADVANCE software will be designed to analyse massive data sets for long term planning as well as rapidly process huge amounts of new data in real time. Data mining, machine learning, and optimisation techniques (such as Ant Colony Optimisation) will be employed to aggregate structured but locally confined data, and extract actionable information to improve local dispatching decisions (e.g.: deadheading minimisation, early detection of missed due-dates, forecast of expected partnership modification).

As a key to incorporating appropriate end-user perspectives and enabling users to interpret and assess automatically suggested decisions, ADVANCE will be designed to integrate human expertise (through cognitive modelling; Bayesian belief networks) with data mining algorithms. Industrial implementations will have the networked road-freight distribution enterprise group Palletways as main piloting partner, involving three different operational and decision levels, and including multiple independent companies on the local distribution levels.

Patent nonsense and complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete not only is not notable, it seems impossible that the sources cited actually have to do with the subject of the article, as they both were written (2004,2008) before the project described began (2010). the text of the article suggests that the sources describe techniques that the developers of the software plan to employ, rather than giving evidence for the statements that are sourced to them. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GENESIS – Groundwater and Dependent Ecosystems[edit]

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Another article about a EU research project written in grant-application language rather than English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With either prose or a table entry in the parent article Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. But there is no content to merge really, except the start, duration, and money, which are not cited anyway. This project is still going on, so might be notable in the future. Could always be spun out at that time into an encyclopedic article. W Nowicki (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almani[edit]

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

Have searched for sources to no avail, tribe appears to be minor offshoot of Baloch. Yunshui (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, would also support smerge if some of the info is deemed valid. Yunshui (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article about Baloch people mentions a lot of tribes, but not the Almani. Is described as a clan of the Domki, so probably NN. MakeSense64 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network KHAN 2006 in Seoul[edit]

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable sporting results which fail WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More articles on kickboxing events that don't have notability claims or independent sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I couldn't find sufficient coverage. There are a few Korean articles on the main nomination:

Although the event seemed to be mentioned in several of these sources, the articles seem to revolve around individual players, not so much the event itself. I had similar results for the other matches as well. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge - The K-1 organization has hosted a large number of events, and some editors have created individual articles for many of the events. Cursory examination shows that many of the events don't have sufficient independent coverage to meet the notability requirements. The best solution is a merger into some parent article, perhaps K-1 itself? For reference, see similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K-1_Europe_Grand_Prix_2009_in_Tallinn, which resulted in a merge into K-1 World Grand Prix 2009 Final. although that latter article may not be a suitable merge destination for the articles in this AfD. --Noleander (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steven Spielberg. with no prejudice towards recreation at a later date. Courcelles 08:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln (2012 film)[edit]

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

Film is in pre-production, WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 18:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is not notable at this point. Old Al (Talk) 22:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steven Spielberg#Upcoming and announced projects where this film is already mentioned and in some detail.[38] Yes, the planned film currently fails WP:NFF, but as it involves a highly notable director, and IS getting coverage, WP:FUTURE indicates we can write of it in Wikipedia if properly sourced... thus the section in the Speilberg article. A redirect saves the history for that time in the Fall of 2011 when the film is slated to actually begin principal filming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a high-profile director, several well-known actors, and has received enough coverage to already have thirteen references. A few films due to be released further in to the future currently have their own article. The IMDb page is fleshed out enough to show that there currently exists more than just an announcement of the film's upcoming release. - • The Giant Puffin • 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your points, but IMDB is not considered reliable for films in pre-production... even films with anticipated notables attached. And while yes, we do have a few rare exceptions to WP:NFF, they are for planned films with far more persistant coverage and over a longer period of time, where coverage of the events of production have a decidely strong notability granted through AFD discussions and consensus of editors... and on a case by case basis. I ask you review WP:Planned Films so you might better see how those exceptions might be determined. This particular planned film does have the coverage to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF guide that at this stage it has a happier home for the next couplwe months in the director's article. It is getting closer to fall, and the very moment principle filming is confirmed, the redirect can be reverted and the article then fleshed out further. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Even though it is a high-profile director and has notable actors, even these movies can be unsuccessful during preproduction and dropped after sometime. The productions notes are interesting, but these can be just as easily described on Spielberg's page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Schmidt. Nymf _hideliho! 07:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Steven Spielberg#Upcoming and announced projects, there is content that can be moved from the article to the section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NFF is helpful for keeping small budget and minor films from popping up all over the place. A Speilberg film at this point in its development, with an array of available sources, is just not the intended target of NFF. Merging it dumps too much info on this specific film into his biography.--Nkgal (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that a merge would dump too much extraneous informtaion in the the Speilberg bio. But as the film is already spoken of there per WP:FUTURE, a redirect per WP:NFF is the better option that presevres the history until such time as the planned film receives enough persistant and in-depth coverage that the the events surrounding its production merit it then being an exception to NFF, at which time the redirect can be undone and the article fleshed out with the (assumed) new sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin G. Reick[edit]

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

Essay-like biography, with dubious sources. Reads like half resume, half advertisement. Notability per WP:ANYBIO is questionable. bender235 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need a Reick's law of spam. Delete. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This person is a businessman, inventor, and author, who has published the book Flying the Stock Market Pilot Your Dollars to Success. I don't see many independent secondary sources discussing him, though I do see 1 or 2 reviews of his book. The article itself is full of puffery and violates the WP:NOTPROMOTION policy, but that alone is not a reason to delete it. The lack of secondary sources that discuss him means he does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Halloween (band). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Demos[edit]

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

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added release history to the article. It seems to me that Vicious Demonstration has a special place in the band history. If the result of this discussion is delete, I'd like to see the information not just deleted but worked into other Halloween (band) related articles. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC (unreleased material, including demos, are in general not notable). I did a Google search, hoping to find "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" for this demo, but found nothing. Before deletion, possibly merge some details from this article into Halloween (band). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardians of the Universe[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria of WP:Notability (books); electronic publication only, no evidence of reviews or commentary on the books, does not appear to be related the DC Comics universe. -- Donald Albury 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reviews or independent commentary of the book; the relation to the DC Universe appears to be in-name only and coincidental. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable self-published book series. No indication of any substantive third party coverage at all. gnfnrf (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Milton[edit]

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails WP:NTENNIS. However, a search for ' "Joshua Milton" tennis ' gets ~30 hits in the gnews archive, so I thought there was a chance he might meet WP:GNG. But looking through them, all the articles are fairly routine sports journalism, none of which focus on Milton specifically. I don't think he has the significant coverage required to pass GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTENNIS (not even close) and WP:PEOPLE. I wasn't able to find anything useful in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franz J. Sedelmayer[edit]

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

I declined this speedy due to a credible assertion of significance, but this bio fails the WP:GNG. causa sui (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator unless better evidence of significant third-party coverage can be found. --causa sui (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(I disclose that I am the author of the article) I do not believe the article fails the notability criteria,which are satisfied by the coverage of the subject personally in e.g. the Wall Street Journal, as cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videsutaltastet (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the good faith disclosure. You may well turn out to be right. Is the WSJ article printed online anywhere, to your knowledge? --causa sui (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-The WSJ article can be found here: http://tba.co.il/pipermail/musings_tba.co.il/2006-March/000264.html --Kolokol1 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(author of the article)There are actually quite a few WSJ and Dow Jones articles on the case online, but unfortunately behind the paywall. I have added some more references to international media coverage, a legal database and, in one case, the text of a court judgement. I don't know the etiquette, but might we say that we have reached a consensus that the article can stay? A novice wikipedian would be grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Videsutaltastet (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has two Russian sources and one Turkish source that support notability and the article's potential growth (these are translated to English):

You can find even more if you look for his name in Russian (Франц Зедельмайер). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the list of references clearly shows, the subject has been covered in the mainstream world media including the Wall street Journal (http://tba.co.il/pipermail/musings_tba.co.il/2006-March/000264.html), and has been cited as a landmark legal case in the professional law community (http://lazareff-lebars.com/blog-en/?p=153 http://robertamsterdam.com/2008/03/russian_property_seized_for_auction_in_germany/). In addition, It is a part of the official diplomatic record (http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/DD2145A87B572045C32578C6005B2CED). What other evidence of notability is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolokol1 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable person described in numerous 3rd party RS, as one can see from the list of references.Biophys (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in media in several countries. For example, the legal case in Sweden received considerable attention after Russia started protesting. Tomas e (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 08:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shel Horowitz[edit]

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

This is an article about a guy who speaks and writes on green issues, but there's no real evidence of notability. For example the citations in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor are minor passing references not the "substantial" coverage required by WP:GNG. Basically, just another moderately successful minor writer who doesn't require an encyclopaedia article. andy (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

(line pause because the coding is going wacky) Okay, I hate the article... Very spammy with commercial links. That's fixable with editing. I first noticed that this guy has a $5000 asking price for honoraria as a speaker. That was a pretty clear tip that while this remains one who just "speaks and writes on green issues," he's probably a big enough fish to merit encyclopedic biography. He's quoted as an expert on fair prices for farmers by THE NEW YORK TIMES. Again, not conclusive, but a pretty clear indicator that this is a guy who is going to clear the GNG bar. And HERE HE IS AGAIN, quoted in a Times article. Not conclusive, but an indicator that should have had the nominator tagging for more sources instead of hauling this to the chopping block, methinks. And HERE HE IS YET AGAIN, quoted as an expert in the Times. At a minimum this is a person firmly ensconced in the New York Times' rolodex of quotable quote-mongers, eh? Anyway, this is all very lite and cursory, but the AfD Notability Detector indicates that this is a probable keep when the smoke clears. Carrite (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, that was the hardest comment to get coherent in a year. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are minor mentions, basically just rentaquote stuff. For example in the first of your references he gets 100 words in a 1,500 word article, and in both the second and third references he gets 50 words at the very end of a 1,000+ word article. And none of these articles are actually about him. That's not substantial coverage. andy (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deleting this page. This guy has written books that have won awards and that have been republished in numerous countries. While he hasn't been quoted at length in the New York Times, he has been quoted there numerous times, as well as in the Christian Science Monitor. To my knowledge, he is known as the founder of the ethical marketing movement. I work in marketing and I never heard anyone use that phrase until I saw his book on the topic. Tuscarora64 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Tuscarora64[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is discussed in many books by other authors, such as here, here, here and here. These show his notability and there are many similar examples. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those aren't independent - his name is mentioned because he contributed a chapter to the book. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see lots of quotations and trivial mentions, but not independent biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the books he contributed a chapter to, "The Great Formula," was a best seller when it came out in 2006. So, no, it was not an independent citation. But shouldn't being a contributor to a best seller count for something? Tuscarora64 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, not really. One swallow doesn't make a summer. andy (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - for all the pro-keeping reasons stated above. Being a go-to expert for The New York Times is a sticking point for me, and I've never heard of them garnering a reputation for 'rent-a-quoting.' Also, to andy, while I think your efforts to aggressively cut out fluff on Wiki are admirable, I think this is a case where we should keep the page up. Significant Coverage (means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material) is of course intentionally fluid, and having articles devoted entirely to the topic isn't a necessity. There's also not a defined cutoff for how much of an article needs to be dedicated to the subject at hand. I think in this particular case, the content of the articles (which classify Horowitz as the, I dare say, notable expert the Wiki article states he is) trump the fact that the write-ups aren't very long. Mr. Ollie opines they are trivial, but I disagree. Anyways, just because I think the page should stay, doesn't mean I don't think it desperately needs a good anti-puff scrubbing. Maybe some maintenance tags at the top would be appropriate? Sloggerbum (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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