< 30 July	1 August >

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overton United F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to have played at a high enough level, per FCHD. Giant Snowman 12:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good spot by Nfitz re:change in league position, club has indeed played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 11:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no evidence of significant coverage, and the club does not appear to have played at a high enough level to merit inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - hang on, they may currently be in Wessex 3 - on the 13th level of the football pyramid. But they spent much of the 1980s and 1990s in Hampshire 1, which was then on the 9th level. Nfitz (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the football pyramid doktorb _words^deeds 15:23, 7 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bournemouth Sports F.C.[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Club has never played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase, which are the standard notability critieria for English football clubs. Number 5 7 08:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, notable club. Giant Snowman 12:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:55, 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. WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't apply, as there is not pricing information, list do not exist for navigational purposes (cats and navboxes do). There are major sourcing and quality issues with this article, but there is not sufficient reason to delete, in the view that community consensus has supported the existence of this type of article in the past Cerejota (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lexmark products[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed Them From Space 20:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

similar "list of products" exist for IBM, HP, and canon. As I understand that wikipedia is not list of everything that exist. I believe that lists of tech products (if included data for comparison) is useful.--Meirpolaris (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous product lists on Wikipedia (e.g. List of AMD microprocessors, List of Toyota vehicles) and WP:NOTDIR does not preclude lists of products. In the absence of any valid delete rationale I am voting keep. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of those cars are independantly notable, so that list acts as a navigational aid. None of these products are independently notable. Therefore the article functions as a catalog of products, and nothing more. With the Toyota article there is an overlap between the functions of an encyclopedia and a catalog, but since none of these products are notable there is no element of an encyclopedia article here, it is only a catalog. Them From Space 12:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with your statement that "none of these products are independently notable". Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it already, doesn't mean it shouldn't, or that it's not notable. For example, I took at random the Pinnacle Pro901, and found significant coverage in reliable sources ([1],[2],[3]) In the absence of articles on individual notable products, this list serves an encyclopaedic purpose. With regard to catalogs, WP:NOTDIR excludes only "sales catalogs" featuring prices. A "catalog" is merely a systematic list, and Wikipedia has plenty of those. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well accepted article type--and it serves very well to keep trivial separate articles out of Wikipedia, and thus makes the encyclopedia itself less like a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep What a stupid AfD. 86.145.142.142 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same might be said about your cheap shot at the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There goes Ritzman as the closer here... Carrite (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my "cheap shot" at the "cheap shotter", I'll consider myself too WP:INVOLVED to close this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a product catalogue. The article is a list and the entries have not annotations so it erves very little purpose. It is also very SPAMmy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG is all about sales catalogues and not including prices in lists such as this. It doesn't preclude lists of products. It would be great if the article were improved to include some detail about each product, but that is not a reason to delete. Lastly, how is this "SPAMmy"? I don't see any promotional content so are you suggesting that lists of products do not belong on Wikipedia because they are invariably promotional? --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see nothing wrong with it except that it's the list equivalent of a stub, which could use a sortable list format with multiple fields. I seriously doubt any of these printers are non-notable by WP standards - pick up one of the countless computer magazines at your local newsagent and you'll see plenty of reviews for peripherals like these. Online examples: [4], [5], [6] etc. ad nauseum. There is no pricing information so the not/catalogue point is not relevant. Someone another 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as commercial spam. This does not serve a valid navigational function. It is a list of products that a company makes that they would be happy for you to buy. Wikipedia is not the Universal Registry of Product Models. Carrite (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Lexmark catalog. The other examples given (cars and CPU's) are not similar; they are individually notable and interesting. It would be a bottomless pit to start allowing articles which are basically just catalogs for manufacturers/distributors. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a lexmark catalog, which would be considerably more detailed. Its an overly concise partial summary of the current products of a major company, and immensely preferable to having articles on every one of them. What is needed is work on the article to indicate what the products actually are, and their significance, along with sourcing to reviews and the like. And, additionally, coverage of earlier products,which would certainly makethe article more encyclopedic. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list isn't concise at all; on the contrary its rather exhaustive, showing most of the current product line. It still contains no sources or any material that demonstrates why the list itself has encyclopedic significance (has the Lexmark catalog affected the world significantly? If not, why should we have a distinctive article detailing it? If so, this needs to be evidenced in the article). The proper encyclopedic summary of this material is already found at Lexmark#Products. Them From Space 22:24, 7 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aseman Pallo[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, looks to be non-notable. Giant Snowman 23:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:53, 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 no consensus. The BLP is sourced, just not with footnotes. There is no consensus that the sourcing is insufficient per WP:BIO to justify an article. Sandstein 05:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Poetess[edit]

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

Contested prod. BLP that is still unsourced after nearly 6 years. Insufficient coverage found to justify an article. Michig (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Some sources have now been added but none appear to constitute significant independent coverage.--Michig (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Note". I'd like to declare my interest. I am the Poetess. I was pleased to see I was listed in Wikipedia for the last 6 years. I am not the original editor of the article nor did I post myself on Wikipedia. I recently registered so that I may communicate with you all in getting my name reinstated into Wikipedia so that researchers, journalists, media and others can find accurate information about "The Poetess" and her contributions to radio/music and hip hop history. I've recently added links to show and prove facts written in the Poetess article. I've made a few edits for accuracy purposes. I have been involved in the music business particularly hip hop for over 20 years. I am one of the few female rappers/historians/journalists and radio vets that actually exist here on the west coast. I hope you will find my name worthy of staying on Wikipedia for I have worked many long hard years in building it. Thank you very much. Ogpoetess (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:48, 23 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) 23:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rap acts from before the internet age often have a good deal of coverage inaccessible to the average wikipedia editor. However, there is here at least a profile of Poetess and a review of Simply Poetry by Eddie Huffman in two different issues of Option [7], the interview by Sheena Lester, "Diggin' Deep: Rap Pages Talks to the Ladies" for Rap Pages (Oct 92, pp. 31-35) and treatment of the Poetess track "Love Hurts" in the context of the Dee Barnes/Dr. Dre controversy in Micheal Small's Break It Down (Carol Publishing, 1992). (I have the full text of the Option pieces - they total ~600 words).

I was also impressed by the context of this brief mention of her activism.[8] 86.44.34.21 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you have extra sources, please add them to the article where they improve the article, rather than here, where they don't. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Anyone with the internet can verify these sources are extant and germane, and can "add them to the article". I see you yourself have not done so. The point at AFD is to demonstrate notability, or the lack thereof. Speaking of which, I regret that you have not taken the opportunity to explain why your !vote remains unchanged by these sources. 86.44.30.207 (talk) 19:22, 29 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) 23:41, 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. Sandstein 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Matthew D. Sacks[edit]

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

Promotional article for a writer of questionable notability. All references are to primary sources, basically identifying that yes, he's published a few articles. All other claims of notability are completely unreferenced. Google search for "Matthew D. Sacks" Bitsource (which he is allegedly primarily known for) shows only 8 results. A search on "Matthew D. Sacks" GlassCode (the company he is CEO of) also shows only 8 results. A search on just the name mainly shows primary sources, or social media sites - little significant coverage. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR specifically, and WP:BIO in general. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your bias is ever-present. If you search for "Matthew Sacks" Bitsource, there are 1,860 results. The author usually does not include his middle initial in his name. --Louella romano (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks - it does not help your case. But since you're trying to discredit my argument, I'll give you the links. "Matthew D. Sacks" Bitsource shows only 8 results. However, in regards to your search result, in actuality, a search on "Matthew Sacks" Bitsource only brings up 260 unique results - most of them are primary sources, blogs, directory listings, and social media sites. Not a lot of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search shows does not reveal enough third-party, reliable sources, that cover this person in a non-trivial way. Given that this person is supposed to be a well-known programmer, the lack of Google hits pretty much indicates that this person is not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The users requesting to delete this page are clearly ignoring the facts. Two citations have been added that are independent of the authors publication that discuss the author. In addition to this, are magazine articles and books published by major publishers not reason enough for reliable sources?

In regard to the lack of Google hits, this is not documented anywhere in the requirements of being a notable author. Also, the number of Google hits for a precision search (with quotes) is approximately 15,000 results, which is notable. An administrative review has been requested on this article. The editors on this article who are requesting deletion continue to *ignore the facts* that the Guidelines for notability *have been met*, regardless of their personal feelings. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthew_D._Sacks for more details and ADREV status. Additionally editors, who mark pages for deletion based on their personal feelings rather than facts should be considered for vandalism. Louella romano

Delete per nom, AndyTheGrump, and Singularity42. — Jeff G. ツ 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't usually respond to AfDs, but I stumbled across this and it looks pretty clear to me. User:Louella romano is advised that the onus is on an article's authors to establish the notability of the subject; an editor proclaiming that something is not notable is not responsible for backing up their assertion. It's your job to provide sources that meet our guidelines. In your sources, I see the program for an event which included this person, their profile on a web site to which they contribute, and several articles written directly by the subject of the article. I don't believe, from skimming the conversation here and at the article talk page, that you're totally understanding the issue here, so I'm going to give another example. If I were writing an article on Shakespeare, I would need to do more to establish his notability than simply link to Hamlet, Richard III, and the Globe Theatre's web page. I would need to link to newspaper articles, academic papers, biographies, another encyclopedia, etc. to establish what it is about Shakespeare that makes him notable. I might provide a citation from an English textbook, describing Shakespeare as one of the fathers of modern literature; I might link to an article published around an anniversary of his birth, describing some of his accomplishments and how they impacted his world. And that's to establish someone like Shakespeare. When we're dealing with a living person, it's even trickier- largely because Wikipedia has a huge problem with what we call "vanity articles." Perhaps if you could provide an article written by someone other than Sacks, in a publication that has nothing to do with him and talking about something influential that he's done, he might be notable enough for inclusion. We'd have to burn that bridge when we came to it. But to be honest, the article as it's written looks more like a LinkedIn profile than a Wikipedia entry, and that's the problem.

And frankly, I don't see what "bias" any Wikipedia editor might have against this person. He seems like a fine columnist. --Moralis (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such external references have been provided. See articles 1 and 2 in references. What you describe in your Shakespeare is not present anywhere in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources. It simply states that a source has to be reliable, not that the New York Times has to be writing about them, which is also outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Methinks you need to abide by your own rules and guidelines. --Louella romano (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." (Hamlet, Act III, Scene ii) :) — Jeff G. ツ 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: read WP:AUTHOR, and then demonstrate how Sacks passes that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't getting it. The very beginning of the section you've just linked us to in WP:SOURCES reads, "Base articles on reliable,third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (Emphasis mine.) You have not provided what we would consider third-party sources- the only sources you've provided that weren't written by the subject of the article are the ones you've just mentioned, numbers one and two. Both of those sources appear to be his profile in the programs for conferences in which he participates. All of the rest of your sources were written by Sacks.

WP:NOTE states that in order to qualify, the subject must be significantly covered in reliable sources that are not in any way affiliated with the subject. Not a single one of your sources meets those criteria. They're all affiliated with him. And please try to assume good faith. Nobody's trying to delete your article because they don't like you or because they don't like Matthew D. Sacks. It's because we are trying to follow our rules and guidelines, and those rules and guidelines tell us that this article's subject isn't notable. --Moralis (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like he does meet the WP:BIO guidelines although he is not as famous as others his notability and references are enoguh to warrant an article, furthermore his efforts in the development community should be publicly recognized. --Gfontejon (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Gfontejon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While I do not intend to disobey my own advice and assume bad faith, the above comment appears to have been left by a single-purpose account. Furthermore, it is not for Wikipedia to decide whether anyone's efforts in any community should be recognized. We just parrot other peoples' recognition. --Moralis (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability of the subject is not established, much less asserted. MSJapan (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison[edit]

I would like to bring forth another example for comparison. Here is another software community leader who has a similar Wikipedia page. The arguments being made against this article could easily be used against this example as well. This is why I feel that the article is being treated unfairly and differently as it clearly shows a similar merit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jono_Bacon. Under this example, one might argue that there is no reason that such an article as that on Mr. Bacon should be approved and this should not. The citations and verifications are very similar to that on the article in question here. --Louella romano (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an essay that discusses arguements to avoid in deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. One of the sections is about other stuff within wikipedia, Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Just because there is a similar article within wikipedia, it does not mean that this article should stay. Even if this article ends up being deleted that does not mean that the other article should be deleted also. Each article is evaluated individually. GB fan please review my editing 02:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have PRODded the other article. — Jeff G. ツ 02:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD tag was removed; I have since created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jono Bacon. — Jeff G. ツ 03:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to locate anything resembling the significant coverage required to support an article. Also, mmmm bacon.. Яehevkor ✉ 15:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reliable sources with significant coverage of this subject have been produced, fails notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a promotional set of bullets. W Nowicki (talk) 01:24, 6 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. There does not yet seem to be sufficient material for an article. The possibility of an article on Vibration anaalgesia should be pursued, if there are in fact sufficient 3rd party sourcing. Whether this particulardevice is yet appropriate for mention in such an article would need discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration analgesia and back pain[edit]

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

On the talk page the author naïvely states "my intention has been to inform Wikipedia users of the gadget that I have developed". That reads to me like an admission that the article is spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have developed and tested the first versions on myself and the process has taken some 10 years to get it such far that people who use it are happy that at least something simple and without side effects on kindney on liver is there. I am sorry if this true and precise information may sound like spam and do not know what can be changed on it if Wikipedia users should get quality information from the source. And I am proud of having excellent advisors all the long way untill now and of being able to offer this reliable light and practical version of the gadget to low back pain sufferers.

I would appreciate if I may be given a concrete hint what can be deleted - I have deleted the link to the site where WIKIPEDIA users could find out how to get the gadget which is not too much in their interest but respecting the basic rules that an article must not advertise anything.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE and feedback. --Capekm (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Capekm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now please let me know what can be be changed in addition to this and shall be happy to do so. And well I have to admit that I am a naive person as Mr Haworth rightly puts it and a bit gullible at that so Mr Haworth is absolutely right.

--Capekm (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Capekm, I realize you are acting in good faith and just trying to spread the word about something you think is valuable. However, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary of what is already known - not a format for putting out brand new information. A Wikipedia article has to be based on multiple reliable published sources. In this case, it sounds like you are writing about your own invention or discovery, and I haven't been able to find any outside published sources to back it up. The usual places I look for information about a medical device or process are PubMed and Google Scholar; I looked, but those search engines found nothing about use of this technique for back pain. In fact the only article I found about "vibration analgesia" in either archive was an article about using the technique to relieve the pain of heel-sticks in infants; nothing about back pain. I'm afraid this article will have to be deleted, for lack of references in reliable sources. I'm sure there are other places where you can publicize your discovery, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:Original research for a better explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mealanie, Thank you for reading my article. I understand that this time you cannot rescue an article from deletion proposed by Mr Haworth
Maybe you could not find the references backing up what I am writing - I have read these articles when my librarian (I am a disabled person and so they were very helpful to me then and made a thorough reseach for me those years ago when the web was not yet in practical use here in Europe) found them for me but this method is now an out of date and a time consuming approach. So I have made some basic reseach of the references for you as availabe on the web nowadays:

Lundeberg's works on vibration or vibratory analgesia are extensive and they spread across a time period of at least 20 years beginning in the 80th. I have quoted only one of of them, as this one is the most telling one on the subject

Lundeberg T. Vibratory stimulation for the alleviation of pain.

Please Melanie, I were wondering if you could have a quick look at the diagram fig 6 vibration application points E, F and G application points in particular. Note please that my gadget uses a harmonic mix up of frequences not 100 Hz exactly, which adds to the higher efficiecy of the gadget. The flat brushless vibration units I have developed - which is what you rightly see as a new feature - are 10 to 12 cm apart from each other on both sides of the backbone, as Ludeberg calls it paravertebral. This is on the page 8 of this article published 1984 by Elsevier, an established Medical Publisher and I have duly quoted this in references. Vibratory analgesia is a proven treatment method and my article tries - perhaps clumsily - to give information on a method that is an important alternative to eg TENS - which is propertly covered by Wikipedia, unlike vibration analgesia.

I can go on with other sources supporting what is written in my article on vibration analgesia in back pain. This topic is covered by renomated and reputable researchers - not mine, e g: Vibration reduces thermal pain in adjacent dermatomes. where the vibration effects are demonstrated - for the difference from the back and spine, paravertebral areas in the above mentined Lundeberg's work, on the volar forearm. This is in agreement with my own observations - having little if no importance and notablility but I dare to mention them - in the area of low back arch, but the dermatomes affected by analgesia may be as far from each other as cervical ones and lumbar ones - which is certainly a new observation, so Mr Haworth would be right calling my article SPAM in this regard too, hope I do not sound too disruptive here.

Or for instance another one:
Lundeberg T. A comparative study of the pain alleviating effect of vibratory stimulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, electroacupuncture and placebo. Am J Chin Med. 1984 Summer;12(1-4):72-9 In this article Lundeberg clearly prove vibratory/vibration analgesia to be as effective in myalgic pain as (again at 100 Hz, the frequency used by my gadget - sorry for talking about it - I have it round my waist now sitting at my bedside PC) TENS.
The notability criteria are one of the strongest WIKIPEDIA pillars - and I shall respect them. You are right that I wanted to spread the word about something NOT YET COVERED in Wikipedia, proved valuable by clinical tests. ^[1] ^[2] So what next after you have deleted the article? Obviously I am not capable to put a good article together without a bit of help or advise of an Experienced Senior WIKIPEDIAN & Wikignome.
What about your kind giving me a hand and starting this botched&bungled article from scratch, rewriting it? I mean something like the one on TENS as it is published in Wikipedia already? Is it too insolent of me? Maybe I am a bit wordy butt being a disabled person having his secondd hand bedside PC as his sole life line to the society and community life outside his bedroom is a pretty effective and painful exclusion for anybody I think and so having a rare and precious opportuninty to discuss, dispute - even if it hurts a bit if you know that your work is going to be disposed of and thrown away - is dear&welcome to me.
To put an end to this rambling of mine:

ONCE AGAIN MELANIE I would feel HOUNOURED if you can help me to put another article together covering this topic for WIKIPEDIA users meeting your standards in full, including the notability for a medical treatment.

References[edit]

^ MUDr Jiří Kozák, PhD, Prague, Head of Pain Treatment and Research Center at the Medical Faculty of Charles University Motol Hospital in Prague
^ Doc MUDr Lubomír Hakl, CSc, Medical Deputy Director of the Medical Faculty Hospital in Brno, the second largest hospital in the Czech Republic, specializing in pain research and treatment for twenty years

--Capekm (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:MelanieN.

This is new, it's nice, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share the principles of verifiability, reliability and independence with Bearian whose uplifting words I am taking to my heart - it took me 10 years, including lots of experiments on myself. Being a disabled person - thank G. still not bedridden but confined to my bedroom only and the freedom of information offered by the web (the BBC and WIKIPEDIA, I am a modern maths lover, investigating the paradoxes of the zero set on other levels than e g vacuuous truth - prefering naive theory to the axiomatic ZFC) is if far from easy for me to wwrite an article and in English at that which in not my mother tongue so I am struggling heavily at times with language and so - getting a few positive words before having this prematurely born article disposed of me some power to go on - even if I feel losing energy and even frustration at times - but your comments are right and I fully accept them. Sorry for sounding a bit personal here - this may be well considered cause for deleting my post and this talk page altogeter.

ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU ALL, to Dr Brian Logan in Particular.

Comment to Capekm: I am not convinced that the subject "vibration analgesia and back pain" has enough outside coverage to be notable. In fact I could find nothing about the application of this technique to back pain. But from what I have seen I think there could be a notable article about Vibration analgesia in general. I did see some published material about the technique - for example, during a heel-stick procedure in infants. It would require some actual verification in published sources; merely posting a link to a university or a professor is not the same as a reference. If you would like to convert this article into an article about vibration analgesia in general, rather than limited to back pain, I think it might be worth trying. One way for you to do that would be to ask the closing administrator here to "userfy" the article to you. That means it would be removed from the Wikipedia general pages and put into a private page for your use only. Then you could take as long as you like, rewriting and finding sources, and then when you have it in Wikipedia shape you ask to have it moved back to Wikipedia. Does this approach appeal to you? --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would rater move that page to AFC-space/userfy. The autor is really new and don't know how to edit correctly/know how our policies are working. mabdul 09:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think I may be able to get the article into the proper WIKIPEDIAN shape with your help and advice:

I have been able only due to your assistance/comments/criticism to spot a lot of serious mistakes I have made and removed them at once: i. any mention and information on the gadget I have been developing all those years using the method known and described by Lundeberg's in the 80s removed - to make it less promotional. ii. declaring Confilict of Interest as a person who has been testing the method in practice and in a specific condition - low back pain iii. improved the layout, busy wikifying the content adding internal links and pictures: and this is a delight as WIKIPEDIA is a treaure trove of wisdom and knowledge - this make even a person which is naive and gullible as I am much richer and happier. iv. added literary qotations that can be verified online - PubMed. I would be happy to cooperate and discuss the article with you, making further changes as you may deem appropriate to get it into the WIKIPEDIA shape.
--Capekm (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability, and sufficiently promotional that it could perhaps have been speedy-deleted. I sympathise with someone unacquainted with how Wikipedia works coming here to promote their ideas and not realising that their work is likely to be deleted, but that is not a reason for keeping a page which is contrary to our policies and guidelines, whether as an article or as a user space page. Userfication is appropriate for a page which, though currently unsuitable as an article, has the potential to be edited so as to be suitable, not, as in this case, for an article on a subject which does not satisfy the notability criteria. It may also be worth mentioning that allowing an unsuitable article to be preserved in user space with the intention of being kind to an inexperienced editor is likely to be a mistake. The effect is all too likely to be that the user is encouraged to spend more time on editing the article, only to see all that extra work thrown away when the page is deleted either at WP:MFD as a WP:STALEDRAFT or at a second AfD when it is returned to mainspace. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr James B Watson,

I am happy to find your comments on my botched articled sentenced to deletion. I am trying as hard as I only can to absorb every word of advice I am given by all of you - and beside the way I do prefere tranparent full versions when discussing ( which is always a rare privilege when your partners are clever people, and all of you - no matter how much you dislike my article) rather than opaque acronyms, not matter when talking to people or trying to understand the sophistication & refinements of WIKIPEDIA editing.

--Capekm (talk) 20:00, 7 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 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Selaheddin Osmanoğlu[edit]

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

Third-generation descendant of a former ruling dynasty, otherwise an unremarkable private citizen with no public role and no apparent signs of individual notability. Notability is not inherited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of ANY sources at all, none of which were on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 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. Consensus seems essentially unanimous. Any remaining problems can be dealt with on the talk p. or by OTRS DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Poplavskaya[edit]

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

I have corresponded with Miss Poplavskaya and it is her wish that this article be removed from Wikipedia. The information given has been cobbled together from various articles and she finds it's contents hurtful and insulting. She has also pointed out that the photograph used was taken without her permission. TristanTzara (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable, as shown by the references in the article. If she wants to communicate any concerns about the article, then she needs to go through the formal WP:OTRS process, so that her identity can be verified. If information is inaccurate, then provide reliable sources to be used to make corrections. That the subject considers part of the article "hurtful and insulting" is vague and not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable person. The subjects of articles are not entitled to manage or delete articles about them, without a much more convincing rationale. The photo appears to be licensed properly by the person who took it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe Google News Archive makes it indisputably clear that she is notable, with major coverage such as this in the New York Times, and this by ABC News. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage on the article makes it blatantly obvious that this person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Deletion is sometimes suitable for articles on notable topics, but it's rare and only to be done in cases of unfixably poor quality or other massive problems, such as copyvios. When it's an article like this, which lacks substantial problems entirely, there's definitely no reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The background to this and the subject's objections which are quoted above can be seen at her user talk page User talk:Margopera. There is also an AN/I discussion Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat, and this discussion at Commons regarding the photograph. It may not be elegantly written but there is is nothing in the article that could remotely be seen as "hurtful" or "insulting" to a neutral observer. It is a relatively brief and matter-of-fact description of her career and makes no reference to her personal life at all. The accusation of "cobbled together" is misguided and reflects the fact that the subject is (understandably) not familiar with how Wikipedia works. This is a biography of a living person. It is required to have references to reliable independent sources and to be based on them. The issue of the photograph is moot at the moment, and is certainly not a reason to delete the entire article. The subject's notability is without question. She is a prominent opera singer with multiple and significant coverage in quality publications including The Guardian, The Independent, New York Times, and The New Yorker (a lengthy feature on her by Gay Talese) as well as in more specialist publications, e.g. Opera News, Das Opernglas, etc. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the subject not wanting to have an article on Wikipedia. She has no personal web site either, by her own choice. Whether that is sufficient reason to delete this article as a courtesy, I'll leave for others to decide. Voceditenore (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable and informative, but remove the pic if she doesn't approve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand Marina Polavskaya's unease with the article, but nevertheless she is clearly a notable opera singer. Like Gerda Arendt, I would suggest that the image is not used since it was taken in inappropriate circumstances. I understand that there is some correspondence between WMF and the subject of the BLP and I would hope very much that that route will lead to a satisfactory and neutral article. (I would note that many rising opera singers in a comparable situtation do not have BLPs, e.g. Irina Lungu, a redlink that might become blue at some stage.) Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Irina Longu in the Italian Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that Marina Poplavskaya is "rising". She is already risen with multiple leading roles in major opera houses over the past seven or eight years. Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard Irina Lungu here in Aix; that's why I mentioned her. Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reason for deletion; meets WP:BIO requirements. See WP:BEFORE. The article subject (or anyone acting on their behalf, as apparently the nominator is doing) should follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Chzz ► 09:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because she is, as pointed out above, an established and notable international star. But I would understand if Ms Poplavskaya felt, for example, that the emphasis on her being brought in to perform at short notice on more than one occasion left the impression that she was used as a last resort simply because she was available. It is a tribute to her reputation that opera managements turn to her for help. Certainly, the question of why the Met found itself having to do so for the tour of Japan has little to do with her biography and if she thinks it misleading then it should certainly go. Wikipedia should be concentrating on the highlights of her career, and it may well be that there are gaps which reliable sources can fill, perhaps not in English. Ms Poplavskaya or a representative may be able to suggest what those might be. As for the photograph, whilst she has no reason to be self-conscious about her appearance there are many people who prefer to protect their privacy by not having their photograph published, and if there is really no photograph that she would like used in this article I think it entirely reasonable not to have one. It is her voice, not her face, that is the subject of her notability. --AJHingston (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — clearly notable.
- Keep the image — according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marina Poplavskaya06.jpg, the image seems perfectly legitimate, and it cannot be described as demeaning. Why remove it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly passes WP:BIO and no WP:BLP issues. If she want s a different picture, perhaps she could supply one with an appropriate license or release? ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination does not claim that she's not notable, just that the article sucks in the subject's opinion. Those concerns should be considered and responded to outside AfD. Photo has nothing to do with AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes BIO, RS reliability, and as yet has not been established that subject is the person demanding deletion (see the corresponding AN/I discussion linked above). tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. I see no good reason to delete the article or picture for either notability or privacy reasons. This google search shows pictures of her can be found on thousands of websites, so I think privacy concerns should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to the pic. The large amount of press she has had internationally should also confirm her notability and again raise skepticism towards the motivations of the nominator. Most likely the nominator is the agent of the artist, and is interested in controlling any PR in regaurds to the artist in question. I'm surprised no one has raised WP:COI concerns.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is unfair. It has been made clear that the concerns are being raised on behalf of Ms Poplavskaya and WP:COI certainly does not prohibit the subject of an article from commenting on accuracy, fairness or anything else. Indeed, that should be encouraged as it is likely to improve the article. That is certainly true here - it is not a good article. The question is how to go about improving matters, and whilst there are procedures for raising objections they are not sufficiently clear to users, which destroys faith in the process and encourages deletion requests. Wikipedia is accused, in my view rightly, of sometimes adopting a bullying attitude in relation to BLP. In the majority of cases, if the subject or those close to them are dissatisfied with an article they are likely to be right. WP editors can strive for objectivity, but the very fact that we have often only the briefest snippets of information to go on, as in this case, makes it difficult to be balanced and encyclopedic, let alone accurate. As has already been pointed out, the best thing here would be for Ms Poplavskaya or her representatives to offer reliable sources which fill out the details of her career, a better photograph, and so forth. She deserves an article, but a good one. --AJHingston (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note As far as I can determine so far it has not been made clear anyone is acting on behalf of the subject. I could use as much eloquence or lack thereof to say I am acting on behalf of Obama, but until the proper channels are gone through to prove thus, it is not clear. Just mentioning because I keep seeing this being used as a defense of the nomination and over at the AN/I. Until proven true this is an incorrect assumption to use for debate. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Margopera --AJHingston (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the AN/I discussion. OTRS is what will determine. When someone claims to be the subject of an article and has made legal threats on the talk page, people are going to be civil. Talking from the perspective of the subject does not mean you are the subject. I will reiterate for you " Until proven true this is an incorrect assumption to use for a debate". That is not to say that said talk page user is not the subject, but to assume so just because they say they are and others have treated that person with civility (partially based upon the possibility of legal actions) and because we try to be civil, that is simply poor. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

related note This also is still not grounds for deleting the article which of course is what this page is for :). tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So can we just close this AFD? No delete votes have been posted and we seem to all generally agree that there was no legitimate reason for this AFD in the first place. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As to the nomination: there is nothing remotely "hurtful or insulting" about this article. Quite the contrary. Clearly a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the subject, which is absolutely irrelevant for our purposes. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 7 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. causa sui (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer)[edit]

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

The article states that Jackson played major cricket, which when this article was created may well have been correct. A look on CricketArchive shows the player has not played any major cricket (for Jackson it would be first-class cricket), so it seems the status of the matches he played in has been downgraded, meaning he no longer meets WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - I'm not an expert on this period, but I know that the line between "major" and "minor" matches this far back can be difficult to draw. The fact that these three matches were all two innings, two day affairs suggests that they were reasonably significant. I believe that Nottingham, against whom he played for Leicester, was one of the strongest clubs around at this time. Also see Leicestershire and Rutland Cricket Club, suggersting that Leicester had a fairly high status. And the other two matches were against MCC at Lord's, which gives them a certain cachet. JH (talk page) 09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appreciate that major cricket is difficult to define, but cricket archive is not the sole authority on cricket statistics. If we have RS that says he's notable (we do) cricket archive's lack of mention of him is not a conclusive reason for deletion, or we fall heavily into POV and OR territory. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a suitable list. These one line stubs of cricketers where little is known of the subject and there is no reasonable chance of expansion are becoming increasingly harder to defend. There is nothing in this article that could not be more succinctly placed in a list of cricketers. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting view. In line with the rest of Wikipedia, the cricket WikiProject has always argued that someone who is or was verifiably notable should have their own article. You seem to be saying the chap is notable but because the article is unlikely to grow it should be merged. Is that right? If so, I disagree - you're crystal balling and arguing against cornerstone policies. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article will remain one sentence for the next two centuries, maybe more detail will be added tomorrow. Either way I don't think listyfying (Sp) short articles is the way to go. WP can never be complete so short articles aren't a problem. Szzuk (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My reading of WP:CRIN suggests notability. In addition to Leicestershire, the player represented the "Thursday Club" and that was evidently a forerunner of the Middlesex county team. I don't believe "first-class" status is applicable to games in that period but I think any player who took part in them deserves an article as the matches were major events at the time. The source is Arthur Haygarth's Score and Biographies which has much greater credibility than Cricket Archive. Having said that, has anyone been able to check the book for references to this player? --Mike^(chat) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think we have to assume good faith with the book ref. Szzuk (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JH has it right in the first comment, above, I think: the line between major and minor is difficult to draw. I worry a bit about a cricketer whose notability rests only on a reference in Haygarth. Haygarth himself wrote: "There is certainly one great mistake, or rather oversight. Which I made during the 50 years and upwards in which I was engaged on the Cricket Scores and Biographies, and it is this -- I preserved too many matches of an inferior calabre by far." (Quoted with these spellings and punctuations in his obit in Wisden 1904.) The ACS has been extending its "approval" of matches back from its previous arbitrary date of 1801 and now has a lot of 18th century matches that it considers "major"; in that Cricketarchive reflects the ACS research, it's a bit uncomfortable that approval appears not to have been given, so far at least, to the matches Jackson appeared in. Deleting him would be no great loss; recreating him in the event of a later ACS ruling would be no great difficulty. Johnlp (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't need to bother with the definitions - no guideline or policy exists, refs are fine. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 7 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. This AfD moved from a discussion of an obviously non-notable BLP, to a more debated article about a viral video. Along the way there was a procedural close of keep which the closing admin switched to relist upon being prompted, which was a good move.

The notability guidelines are operative here, specifically the GNG and also WP:Notability (web). In the delete camp, Metal.lunchbox invokes the latter in terms of the often ephemeral nature of web content, while SheepNotGoats invokes the former with close attention to whether or not the coverage (which obviously exists) is truly "significant." A Quest For Knowledge responds to these points with links to sources, but does not really offer a policy argument. In general a case is not made that this viral video meets our notability guidelines, and the objections from delete !voters on that front are not well responded to.

All that said, this video has definitely attracted a lot of attention and is popular (it's funny!). The creator might well go on to some sort of career in entertainment given the popularity of this video. Were that to happen, there would be no prejudice against recreation of the basic content now being deleted in one form or another. I'm also happy to userfy it if someone is so inclined, but for now the discussion seems to me to warrant a deletion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Hartmann[edit]

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

Article is about an individual who fails WP:GNG; she is apparently known for a parody youtube movie. The movie has minor coverage in mid/low quality sources but nothing substantive and doesn't seem to be particularly notable amongst the hundreds of youtube videos/memes mentioned in passing by news outlets each year (i.e. it too fails WP:GNG)

Beyond the video no other sources have any information

Content may deserve a brief mention in a list article about internet parodies, but I can't find one that fits for the moment. Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources have been listed on the article's talk page, and simply need to be integrated. Article is no longer about the individual, but about the video -- it's been moved to EHarmony cat video and rewritten & reorganized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that the person is not notable, but the viral video is. So I renamed the article "EHarmony cat video" and we've begun editing the article to focus on the video, not the person. As for sources, a few secondary sources are used in the article itself, and I added several more to the talk page. They just need to be integrated into the article, that's all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The video is not notable either - see WP:NOTNEWS. Sourcing is vague at best, maybe one or two low-mid quality news articles and then some trivial mentions in lesser sources. All dating from the same day. It has no enduring notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm familiar with WP:NOTNEWS but it doesn't apply in this case. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This has been provided. The video has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure what you're looking for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The video is funny but it is not notable. aside from a description of the video itself the article is unsourcable. There is no reason to believe that people in the future will have a reason to read about this. THere is a funny video that gets popular on Youtube every week, almost none of them are notable, momentary popularity may seem like notability but it is not. see WP:Notability (web) specifically, ' "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," ' Remember that notability mean impact. It is true that some sources noticed the video but they simply describe it say that its popular and embed the video, they otherwise don't have much to say about it. They're likely just trying to capture a little of the videos ephemeral popularity. It is pretty much inconceivable that the passage of time will do anything but make this topic vanish into complete irrelevance, down the memory hole. The creator of the video is herself certainly not notable. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't true. Here are some sources which describe the video in-depth.[9][10][11] Maybe you don't think that this video deserves coverage, but it's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for the record, it has been established repeatedly across multiple fora, including (but not limited to) WP:RSN, that we don't consider the Daily Mail a reliable source for our standards. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reliablity heavily depends upon context. Sports Illustrated, for example, is a great source on tennis or basketball, but a terrible source on general relativity. I think that in the case of a viral video, this source is more than acceptable. AFAIK, none of the information in the article is contentious/controversial. I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that the Daily Mail is wrong and that this video doesn't exist, that it's not about cats, etc.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Mail is probably an OK source in this case. But it's not a very compelling source - an anonymous video exists, got some hits, and was given a bit of media coverage over a couple of days. I suggest that if the parodies become a meme - or anything else springs up showing enduring interest - then we can reassess. But for the moment the media reports basically amount to "it exists". The tabloid media report on hundreds of these trivial things a week and the reason we have "NOTNEWS" is to avoid filling up Wikipedia with each and every one :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly fails GNG. In each of the independent sources listed, the video gets the following amount of coverage:

Daily Mail - 18 sentences total (of which only 12 are about the video)
CTV news - 8 sentences
Ditigal Life - 7 sentences
Trivial mentions:

CBS News - 3 sentences
Sun News - 3 sentences
Social Times - 2 sentences

The only one that comes close to meeting the "significant coverage" stipulation of GNG is the Daily Mail article, and even that's a stretch (especially in light of StrangePasserby's comment). If 6 months from now, this video becomes a permeating meme, fine, write an article then. But today, it fails our requirements. Seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. I don't understand why people have to run and create an article for every little thing that gets mentioned in the news one day. I wish WP had a rule that we had to wait X amount of time after something is mentioned the news before it can have an article, so we don't have to waste time having these crystal ball AFD discussions. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I provided three sources which cover the video as whole and not in passing.[12][13][14] You've seemed to have missed a couple. I note that SheepNotGoats failed to address my comment that reliability depends on context.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but I went by the sources that were provided in the article. And I "failed to address" your comment because, if you look at the timestamps, your comment was posted a whole 2 minutes before mine, so I didn't even see it until after I had finished writing mine. But anyway, I see no need to address the issue on whether or not the Daily Mail is considered reliable, because my issue with it is that it doesn't provide particularly significant coverage to begin with (with a whopping 12 sentences). Now, you may want to consider not badgering every single "delete" comment. It doesn't make you look good. SheepNotGoats (talk)

If one is going to vote in an AfD, they should perform some due dilegence to research the topic. I posted new sources on the article talk page yesterday,[16][17] and also made reference to it ("a few secondary sources are used in the article itself, and I added several more to the talk page") in this discussion yesterday.[18] I'm sorry that you feel badgered. But in order to reach concensus regarding deletion, these are the types of issues that need to be discussed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's no evidence that this is being covered as anything except a funny news story, and Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Wikipedia should not be the catchall for trivia that only gets a few tabloid articles and insigificant or nonexistent coverage from everything else. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is for Wikinews, maybe, but certainly not an encyclopedia. What may be proportionately notable on the internet is usually, including in this case, disproportionately non-notable in the "real world". In other words, just because it's a big deal on the internet doesn't make it a big deal. In terms of WP:NOT, I'm citing points 2.3, 2.9, 2.10. Digging into the problem with this article more I would argue WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:ROUTINE all would deny this article a spot here. I think it more appropriate Wikinews cover this event. Naturally time could bear me out to be incorrect; but I would posit this "event" be gone and forgotten by all but a few web trolls (not trying to point anyone out specific here) in but a few months. 173.89.18.89 (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At request, I've reverted my closure (which was a procedural keep on the basis of a major change in the article title to EHarmony cat video) and relisted. I have, as I said, no opinion on the article in either version. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 31 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, DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Too early to tell if notable. This seems like an article that should be allowed to stay for now, but then given a natural burial in a few months as it most likely slips into obscurity/non-notability. After all, notability is not temporary. Carson (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the initial decision to close (as keep) was reverted and the article relisted, it appears that the AfD notice on the article was removed after the close and was never reinstated (until I did so just now). Not sure what the procedural implications are of having an article listed in AfD for a week without a notice on the page, but at least the notice is there now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was initially inclined to recommend deletion for lack of notability, but the cited sources (other than YouTube) appear to be independent, reliable, and significant. I'm still a bit unsure of the wider significance (if any) of this video, which is why I'm saying "weak keep". Commenting on Crtrue (Carson)'s comment above, my understanding is that WP:NTEMP doesn't mean "temporary notability is not real notability", but more like "once notable, always notable". Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:54, 7 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. Sandstein 05:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lowley[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability established through the topical notability guidelines for composers/musicians or the general notability guidelines. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject could possibly become notable at some date, but has not yet achieved the level necessary for inclusion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:13, 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 Withdrawn by nominator

Derrick Davenport[edit]

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

While I would have imagined otherwise from the Man of the Year (Playgirl) title, I did not find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this male model and personal trainer in order to evidence notability under GNG, nor reliable sources to verify the claim under any theory of inherent notability. Some blog coverage, and I'm sure the books in the bio include photos of him, but I don't see via Google or in the article history any biographical coverage. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Withdraw, see below.[reply]

Keep: The award as Man of the Year signifies that he is notable. The secondary and/or reliable sources you would be looking for would be found in the magazine, I would guess, and that satisfies WP:BIO, which is the ruling notability guideline here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that can be reliably verified, I have no trouble with calling the claim notable. Appears the relevant issue would be June '06, says [19]. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The publication in question would reliably verify it wouldn't it? We don't need a copy of the magazine itself if digital reproductions of the cover have him on it and the words "MAN OF THE YEAR" somewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we edit conflicted, I'm withdrawing based on the information visible on that cover. Give me a sec and I'll mkae it official. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom, cover image above sources the claim. I could quibble about whether that site is correctly reproducing the cover, but even I'm not that pedantic. The link I provided includes a picture, "Man of the year 2006", the Playgirl title, and the guys name, I'm convinced. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:57, 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 Author close. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 21:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of iOS jailbreaking[edit]

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

Page made by WP:SPLIT but not with consensus. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SPLIT, consensus was not required to split the article (If an article meets the criteria for splitting, editors can be bold and carry out the split.) No reason is given for the deletion of this page. As I stated on Talk:IOS jailbreaking, That one section alone made the article too long to comfortably navigate. That one section being half of the entire article's size makes it a logical choice for splitting, removing it made the article a comfortable length. - Sudo Ghost 20:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about List of The Simpsons couch gags? That article is over 120 bytes long. ~~EBE!@#~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It doesn't matter how long that article is. - Sudo Ghost 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPLIT. The article was around 64kb, which split says probably should be divided. Moving just that one section split the article's size in half, to around 31kb, which split says length alone does not justify division, meaning the article's size is good. As the entire section was about the history, and moving that made the split article as large (actually a bit larger) than the original article, the split article being too small is not an issue, and covers a specific topic, the history of the jailbreak updates, leaving the original article to cover all of the non-historical topics. The history article is linked in the original, so interested readers are able to view the information, but readers not interested in historical information don't have to scroll through an entire second article's worth of data. This is the reason it was split, as I see it as a logical move. - Sudo Ghost 20:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:49, 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. Sandstein 05:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Traphagan[edit]

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

Subject has written books and many journal articles and book chapters, but does not show up in secondary coverage. There also seems to be a conflict of interest in the page creation by User:JTrap, who knew all the biographical details and parentage of the subject without citing any sources. The page was PROD'ed in 2007 and the PROD removed by the page creator. Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to me that he probably passes both WP:Prof #6 and #8.

WP:prof 6 via his past presidency (2005-6) of the Association for Anthropology and Gerontology
WP:Prof 8 via being a past editor-in-chief (2001-4) of the Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology and also the Managing Editor (1991-1993) of the perhaps less notable Journal of Ritual Studies. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep with a GS h index of 11 in a poorly cited subject may pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. In addition to what Msrasnw listed, the subject appears to pass WP:PROF #6 per the directorship of the UT Austin Center for East Asian Studies. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Directorship would not qualify. Category is for President or Vice Chancellor. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 6 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Campbell (footballer born 1988)[edit]

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

Article prodded because player had never played at a fully-pro level, thus failing WP:NFOOTY, and because there wasn't enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Creator removed prod with rationale on article talk page. Struway2 (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some sources
"Ball hails Campbell". The Telegraph
"Five-star stuff from Benfield's John Campbell". ChronicleLive.
"Campbell Can't Wait To Face Toon". Newcastle United.
"Darlington net Newcastle Benfield striker John Campbell". BBC.
"Whirlwind 12 months at Darlington has John Campbell in dreamland". The Journal.

jorgenev 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Routine does not apply.The articles are specific on him and reactionary. Not something like a 'game score report' as suggested by WP:ROUTINE. jorgenev 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. Sources provided fails WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo^[online] 00:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NTEMP hardly applies, the articles cover him at multiple stages in his career. jorgenev 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re sources, low-level football in England, and media coverage thereof. Newcastle Benfield, Campbell's club before Darlington, plays at the ninth tier of football in England, in front of about 100 people, and the local paper, the Chronicle, has a weekly roundup of the league's results, giving a namecheck to anyone who did anything out of the ordinary. The agency piece on the Telegraph website quotes a former teammate at junior level telling the Swindon local paper that Campbell did OK in a trial with that club's reserve team. The BBC routinely report signings for clubs at sixth tier and above, so they will mention him joining Darlington. The Journal is the local paper doing a piece on one of the local team's players. That's what local papers do. NUFC hung their piece leading up to a pre-season friendly against Darlington on the contrast between Campbell, who they released at age 14, and Andy Carroll, who they didn't, and who went on to set an English transfer record. In England, this is the sort of routine sports journalism that semi-pro football gets. It certainly isn't the sort of significant coverage needed to pass WP:BIO.

If the player had done anything to achieve notability via his football career, it would be useful background material to fill out his biography, but he hasn't yet. When I first proposed deletion of this article, I told its creator that if I'd come across a player with a lengthy career at top non-league level but nothing in a fully-professional league, I wouldn't put it into the deletion process despite his failing WP:NFOOTY#Association football, but this player has only 12 appearances even in the Conference (fifth tier, not fully-pro). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment/lecture, but this isn't actually what WP:ROUTINE says. Keep 94.14.239.25 (talk) 20:35, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksejs Giļničs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:footy. The player never played professionally and very young, no general coverage. Matthew_hk t c 17:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. If and when he makes his Serie A debut he will be notable, but until then he fails WP:NSPORT. No significant coverage means he fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USC SoundCheck[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I have been unable to locate significant coverage outside of original sources and the student newspaper "The Daily Gamecock", and as noted in WP:MUSICBIO, "Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial..." I am unable to find any evidence that the group has achieved national recognition, has received non-trivial coverage of a national or international tour, has released albums on a major label, or has won any major music industry awards. A claim made by the article's original author (who has declared a conflict of interest [20]) [21] is, "number one A Cappella group in the state of South Carolina" - but I am unable to locate any sources to verify this. The author's claim appears to be based on number of youtube hits and facebook fans, which is not an acceptable source for such a claim. This appears to be a student organization which is popular on its own campus, but at present does not have significant notability for a Wikipedia article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. There are dozens of other entries on "collegiate a cappella" groups that could be deleted as well. Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as normal for this type of article . State awards are not sufficient; national awards would be needed, or significant recordings. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 7 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 no consensus. Has been substantially edited since nomination. Stubbing and/or rewriting to improve the article remains always possible. Sandstein 05:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prosocial behavior[edit]

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

There's certainly a topic here, as can be seen through book and journal searches, but the article is such a mess of original research that it would be better to blow it up - there's pretty much nothing here that belongs in an encyclopedia article on prosocial behavior, and "replace all the content" is not substantially different from "delete and start over." It would also be helpful to decide whether or not a separate article should (eventually) exist or whether it should just be a redirect to Altruism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that, at very least, the article here is pretty weak. There may be some value in merging to altruism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.76.222 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a good school essay, but not really encyclopedia material. An article on the topic might be possible, it's not exactly the same as altruism. Borock (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, either prune or rewrite. Notable topic of a Cambridge U. Press book, with an "extensive literature" according to this journal article. WP:GNG Needs a more scholarly but readable tone-- PsychWiki.com Prosocial Behavior Article is a little too academic. References were not adequate (popular examples), so I've added appropriate refs to the "Further reading" and "External links" section. Started trimming, asked for help at WP Psychology, Sociology, and Education. Prune back to a stub, with references, if immediate rewrite isn't possible. Trilliumz (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Trilliumz (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pro-social behaviour" is virtually synonymous with "altruism". Altruism is in pretty good shape. Nothing that can be said here can't be said at Altruism. We don't have two articles for the same topic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly, altruism is not motivated by reciprocity. Pro-social behavior may have reciprocity as a motivation. The idea behind promoting pro-social traits in children isn't cultivating selflessness so much as simply having them get along in groups, and not grow up to be mean, nasty, or criminal (i.e., exhibit "antisocial" behavior). US Health and Human Services does not use "altruism" as a keyword for encouraging desirable social traits in children, they say "prosocial behavior"-- most likely because we just need acceptable behaviors from kids, regardless of selfish or altruistic motivation. It appears the point behind making a distinction between "prosocial behavior" and "altruism" is something on the order of "We want you to be the kind of person who does the right thing for others, even if you're not altruistic at all and only do it because you want something back." Trilliumz (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Nicely put. I was becoming vaguely aware of the distinction, hence "virtually", but you've clarified it beautifully. Replacing the existing content with a few sentences saying what you just said would justify keeping this, I think. I'm reading de Waal, Frans (2009) Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved just now, which makes the distinction but I don't think it's an appropriate source for this ... more philosophical ramble than rigorous social science.

I cringed at the first line:

Prosocial behavior is caring about the welfare and rights of others, feeling concern and empathy for them, and acting in ways that benefit others.

A behaviour is not a feeling and, anyway, it contradicts you and de Wall. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my nomination, I certainly don't discount the possibility of a separate article existing, and my confusion over whether it is or is not the same as altruism is my own uncertainty, not a statement that they should definitely be only one article. I just think the article is currently bad enough that there's nothing worth saving and it should be blown up and re-written from scratch - the material is available. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trilliumz has made it worth keeping. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until someone actually reads the books from further reading, and writes the article based on those instead of basing it on Wiktionary. Fails WP:RS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know Wiktionary was unacceptable when I added it; replaced it. That's one book and the rest are articles-- aren't articles acceptable sources? Other books are available, but may take a day to get them. Why not add your RS and improve this? Trilliumz (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not merge to altruism. There can be several causes for prosocial behavior, altruism is only one of them. See a WP:RS [22]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very surprised to be reading this. But it appears that a deletionist has suggested it, wasting a lot of people's time that could be devoted to writing better text... lets' just all get on with that job. Tim bates (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. Poor quality articles get edited, not removed. As a hint, it is possible to delete most or even all the content and replace it without actually deleting the article. The effect of deletion is to make the history invisible, which we would certainly do if it were actually harmful, but otherwise we don't use deletion to make errors invisible, or we'd be deleting 90% of the revisions in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last comment entirely. This is an important topic in psychology, and it should not be too difficult to improve it with citations - such as the book by Daniel Bar-Tal on this subject. So, I would be in favour of keeping this article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:23, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logix (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Can't find any 3rd party sources. Seems to be a personal project. The logix stuff mentioned on google scholar seems to be unrelated to the language. snaphat ► 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no proponent for its deletion. Prior AFD was WP:POINT; there was no need to reinstate an AFD brought in what is now clearly bad faith. TJRC (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd nominate it for deletion if it were kept simply because of WP:Point this time. The article consists of two sentences and no references. And no 3rd party references can be found. The original pointy behavior of the nominator doesn't invalidate the fact that other editors in good faith, discussed and voted for the article to be removed. We shouldn't have to AfD the article again just to have the discussion. snaphat ► 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but see this discussion for an explanation of why some people disagree with you. Since snaphat (talk · contribs) seems to think the article should be deleted, then it may help for you to consider it as if it were his nomination. causa sui (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, count me as Neutral based on Snaphat's effective adoption of the AFD. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. —Ruud 10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero independent coverage, it seems. I can't find any, but I can't be sure none exist with a name like this, but see WP:BURDEN. There's a google books hit for [23] but it appears a different, older language than the one described in this article (Python didn't even exist then). FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:51, 7 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. No one, even the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Courcelles 00:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boo (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, substantial coverage in reliable sources: [24], [25]. First is a published book, second is blog of recognized authority. TJRC (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as TJRC points out there are plenty of sources for this, it's a well-known language in the .NET world and Google Books gives you a few good sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you google, there a many mentions of this language. The problem is simply that the article doesn't reference them. snaphat ► 02:53, 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. No one, even the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Courcelles 00:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough- Referenced in Byte magazine and used by NASA in some of their software. snaphat ► 02:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; no proponent for its deletion. Prior AFD was WP:POINT; there was no need to reinstate an AFD brought in what is now clearly bad faith. TJRC (talk) 03:21, 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. apparently unverifiable. though there are sometimes problems with sourcing in this geographic area, it's very unlikely there would be for a person of this wealth. If we're all wrong, and someone does find sources, then there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mahmud Bin Abdul Kareem[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax. I cannot find any evidence that this person exists, despite a claimed net worth of $4.1 billion. The article claims the subject is the founder and chairman of a telecommunications company. The creator of the article also wrote an article about the company [26] by copying and pasting the article on Emirates Telecommunications Corporation [27]. The subject of this article is not the chairman of Emirates Telecommunications Corporation, and was not at the time the article was written (the current chairman, Mohammed Omran, has been in that position since 2005 [28]). Given that the creator of this article added a cleanup template dated six months earlier I suspect the content may have originally been copied and pasted from somewhere else. Hut 8.5 15:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd been wondering about this myself, I'd had no luck sourcing this, and was surprised this person wasn't on Forbes' list of billionaires. Not sure it's a hoax, but it's certainly unsourced and i've had no luck sourcing it, I'd be happy to reevaluate if some of the claims here proved verifiable. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything to source it with. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable at best, probable hoax. The only Gbooks hit is a copy of this article. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax. If he had a net worth of $4.1 billion, he would almost certainly have garnered some coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been unable to locate any reliable source coverage. I tried some common spelling changes on the name as well, and was also unable to turn anything up. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:41, 6 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. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lalla Latifa Hammou[edit]

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

The wife of someone notable - unworthy of her own article - some contentious uncited also in the article - templated uncited since ten months - If someone can assert she really exists and was married to him then I support a deletion and then a protected redirect to stop this article being recreated, if not then delete and salt. I notice the detail about her is in Hassan II article but it is uncited there as far as I can see - anyway this person is not wiki notable and shouldn't have a BLP here. WP:NOTINHERITED - Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that she really exists and was married to Hassan II. [29] I agree with your suggestion of a protected redirect (to Hassan II). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 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) 00:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well she certainly exists since her son is the current king of Morocco. Article is worthy of existence in my opinion given that she is a member of the Royal house of Morocco and was "First lady of Morocco" for 39 years. Tachfin (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-->

The (possibly imprisoned?) mother of the current king whose brother attempted to kill King Hasan II is a non-notable...? ...and Iron Man's enemy "Whiplash" isn't? You guys are beyond laughable with all your little codes - it's breathtaking. "Wikipedia is Second Life for Corporations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.45.36 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The immediate family of ruling monarchs are notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A link to the policy, guideline, or essay you are citing would be helpful. Edison (talk) 20:05, 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect - Not sure I agree with DGG that " The immediate family of ruling monarchs are notable" some Kings have scores of children, do all the children warrant WP articles? of course not. I suggest that immed family members of national leaders are notable only if sources discuss the family member in a significant way (such as Albert, Prince Consort, Mary Todd Lincoln, etc). Lalla Latifa Hammou appears to have virtually no mention in Google Books. The best solution, in my opinion, is to include mention of her in the Hassan II of Morocco article, where she is already mentioned. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I agree with Noleander's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED: <<does not apply, to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability.">>. This is WP rule found here

As I said, she was first lady for 39yrs with the title "Mother of the princes" (King Hassan II only had one wife), and that constitutes enough notability in the royal case. If this gets deleted than all first ladies articles should be. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, i don't see any other first ladies worthy of any notability on their own. This is exactly why WP:NOTINHERITED has the exception cited above. Tachfin (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not accurate to say "With the exception of Hillary Clinton, i don't see any other first ladies worthy of any notability on their own." Each of the first ladies that have WP articles have hundreds of WP:Reliable sources that discuss them, often there are entire biographical books on them. The point here is that the subject of this article has virtually no mention anywhere in books or other key sources. No one is suggesting that she be eliminated from the encyclopedia, merely that she be described in a section in the King's article, and this article redirect to that. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. Notability is not inherited. Some "royal families" where the rulers have multiple wives are so large that it is doubtful all members satisfy WP:BIO on the basis of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, especially in small countries, and especially if they are somewhat closed societies. Being a family member of a ruler does not automatically make someone a public official. Not every family member of every ruler travels the world giving speeches and making appearances, or is in the press all the time for other reasons. One cannot automatically equate a wife of some king to a "First Lady" of the US or the spouse or heir of a British monarch as having "a public position that is notable in its own right." (Seems like there should have been some press coverage of Hassan marring "Lalla#1" and "Lalla#2," both in 1961. Was it sort of a double wedding?) Google news archive had only a handful of passing references to her, listing her as the mother of her offspring, not sufficient to support of WP:BIO. Where is coverage of her personally? Edison (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject seems to be more commonly known as just "Lalla Latifa", so these sources should be considered: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lalla Latifa did undertake public duties covered by the press,[30] and is covered on 5 separate pages of this book, with the coverage on pages 77 and 79 appearing (with my basic Spanish) to be substantial. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the wife of a head of state she is notable as per both DGG, and Noleander along with the coverage found by Phil Bridger. VER Tott 08:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines don't say - all wives of heads of state are notable. I can't find any mention of such a clause in the notability guidelines? Would you please point me to where it is asserted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hassan II per Noleander. I don't see any policy stating that such people are automatically notable, and also note that all of the couple's children have articles; I'd make a pretty good guess that most ~~if not all~~ of these are in a similar position. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that you mean that the article of an active head of state should be deleted too? Good guess indeed Tachfin (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not, hence my use of the word "most". I will however strike the "all" to make it clearer. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(@Off2riorob and Black Kite) I moved the discussion on from the claim that such people are automatically notable. How do the sources that I linked not satisfy the general notability guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those. Even the newspaper article admitted that she is hardly ever seen in public, whilst I suspect (with my ropey translation skills) that the majority of the book mentions are in terms of her relationship to other people - mainly Hassan and her son. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion has shifted, best to let it continue. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been consistent practice that immediate family of heads of state and usually heads of government are notable. The attempt to change this consistent practice is inappropriate, for there is always both importance and interest. For an area where sourcing is difficult for us, the extent of sourcing needs to be relaxed, or we will never escape WP:Cultural bias. WP:V is of course necessary, and has been met. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil - the citations you have presented do not assert a requirement that this person warrants their own Wikipedia biography, so my moved to a position of redirect is unaltered - nothing is lost with a redirect - all the detail currently in the article is already in the husbands article - if someone reliably expands the detail there about this wife then a case can easily be made to recreatew a bio under her name - right now from presented evidence here they seem notable in the husbands bio only or a mention in a list. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without coverage, nothing is notable, and I'm not seeing any coverage, certainly not to the level of WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage highlighted by Phil Bridger is likely to get it over the line, in my view. When the "Hammou" is dropped from searches there is a fair bit out there, although admittedly not in a huge amount of depth/ Add to that a reasonable expectation of more coverage in the subject's native language (Arabic) and a separate article is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fascinating, I added a few references to the article. Though she has less coverage than a normal spouse of a king might have, she has coverage for being so kept out of the public eye, which has not escaped frequent attention. There's nothing gained by deleting this article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - thanks for the improvements. The privacy content is not really about her, more about privacy in general. Anyways, if its kept, which is looking likely at least is sourcing is improved. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Poop Alley Tapes[edit]

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

no independent notability notability shown for this album. lacks coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. prod removed saying "notable artists contributed to it, so its notable" which is simply not true. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible big name bands could get together and make an album together and it not get coverage? I see it sold at Amazon so its a real thing. I'm not bothering searching for it any further, since I keep seeing the album cover, which is discussing beyond belief. Want to vomit just thinking about it. Surely the fans of some of these groups know of magazines or somewhere that covered it. Dream Focus 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no non-trivial coverage found. Nothing on Gnews, only one hit on Gbooks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self promotion.--Huh direction (talk) 23:32, 6 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. Sandstein 05:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hamdi[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography. Even if well referenced, being a medal holder doesn't qualify him for a wikipedia entry. Rafy talk 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough supported by neutral sources --Yamsahh (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is presumed to be notable because he meets not just one but two of the criteria at WP:SOLDIER, which says "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour ... (or) Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer". The miltary rank and basic outlines of Hamdi's life are confirmed by reliable sources, such as this Google search and this book. It is unusual and notable for a general to be killed in combat. According to this website, the Sinai Star 1st class is Egypt's "highest award for bravery in battle". This website says that the Sinai Star 1st class is "awarded to members of the armed forces who display an exceptional level of courage or resourcefulness, resulting in the infliction of casualties on the enemy while in action. The Order has been awarded posthumously." There is a very strong presumption that more in-depth sources are available in Arabic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very valid point here. I suggest adding those references and closing the discussion.--Rafy talk 16:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that he was a general officer and/or did receive Egypt's highest award for gallantry, either of which would qualify him under WP:SOLDIER and WP:UCS. I appreciate the article is poorly written and doesn't include any sources as yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Rafy Thank you for the positive response to my input, Rafy. Though sources exist in English, they are a bit sketchy, and mostly related to the tunnel under the Suez Canal named for him. I notice on your userpage, Rafy, that you are fluent in Arabic. Can you possibly search for a high quality Arabic source or two that would confirm the main facts? I have not been able to confirm in English that he was awarded the Sinai Star, but only that it is the highest Egyptian medal for bravery. Egypt published a ten page booklet about the tunnel in English that may well have a profile of him, but sadly it is not available online. When English sources are scanty, better sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable. Thanks again. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google isn't Arabic-friendly and tends to accentuate forums results. I will see what I can salvage.--Rafy talk 17:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep; the subject of the article was a General officer meeting a criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER. That being said, the article needs drastic improvement and greater references from reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 6 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 deleted. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Key Fitness 24/7[edit]

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

The article fails to address the criteria of WP:ORG. Being one of the 24 hour gyms in Australia is not particularly notable and neither is being the only one in Tasmania to offer Technogym's VisioWeb product. Improvement notices are being removed and as the article has now been created 3 times, raising for a wider discussion. For BEFORE advocates, you may wish to be reassured that I find no matches to {"Key Fitness" Tasmania} when searching in GBooks or GNews archives. Fæ (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmania is a small place so to have a gym offering what key fitness offers, and to be the 1st gym in tasmania offering internet access on cardio equipment (treadmills etc) also going against the franchising model/trend that is spreading across Australia and brands itself as an alternative to the "big box" fitness centers, and to have been supported and commended by an Australian football league club (Gold coast suns) i believe that it is a worthy 1st article for myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dytas (talk • contribs) 14:50, 31 July 2011
Delete. This is just an advert and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can i change the article to make it NOT an advert in your opinions?

blank it. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure promotion. I can't see any match with the criteria in WP:ORG Cst17 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible claim to notability, and no significant coverage in independent sources. Of the two sources currently there, one is apparently an advert from the company and the other one doesn't mention the gym at all. --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Hamzepour[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: hasn't yet played a professional match. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable youth player, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Another current Persepolis player that isn't notable; might be a few more in that template. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without any caps for Persepolis he clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and due to a lack of significant coverage he fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG--Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 16:06, 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 Speedy Keep. Non-admin closure. Error in searching name for sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young-Tae Chang[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF jsfouche ☽☾Talk 12:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you checked the citation record of his papers? That's what would, or would not, establish him as an authority in his field. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have and find a GS h index of 29, a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 in chemistry. Would the nominator care to explain why he ignored this feature? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I evidently typed the wrong name when trying to check. It was not ignored, but rather a careless typo. Once I clicked the link in the AfD intro above (rather than a manual search), I clearly see this passes WP:Prof#C1. Will close as speedy keep. Thank you for alerting me to this. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:29, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Haynes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously kept (no consensus) from an AfD in 2006, but as there is still no significant coverage of him or his work in independent reliable sources, I think standards have increased and consensus can change. The-Pope (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable bio about someone with some non-notable works. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:34, 6 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McDonald[edit]

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

Non-notable biographical article. Certainly doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. McDonald is not the subject of the Sydney Morning Herald article referenced, but rather the private network he installed is. Also looks quite possible that User:Gdmcdo who created the article is in fact Dominic McDonald (see File:Dominic_McDonald.jpg).Shudde ^talk 09:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur this article does not meet any of the criteria at WP:BIO. The article appears self serving. Not notable so suggest deletion. FruitMonkey (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Nothing to back up claim of being an entrepreneur - he appears to be an IT manager. So what. noq (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not notable. Some false informations were present in the article regarding his rugby player cv. He was said to have played for the australian national team, but it's not the case. So I had to clean up the article. As for his job of entrepreneur, there is no indication of any notability or specific interest for wikipedia. Udufruduhu (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with points above. So, in doing so, adding more data to strengthen Dominic's article. Bringing in more supported documentation. In terms of Rugby, contacted Rugby Australia and awaiting verification to post to ensure notability and correctness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.202.82 (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim to be Australia's first Prop is clearly ludicrous. The rugby claims seem to be he played for a non representative schoolboy team. There is no evidence of being an entrepreneur. The reference given to AccessIQ did not mention him at all. Google searches for his name in association with the company come up blank. The Cisco reference did not mention him. And being quoted in a press release about the company he worked for does not make him "recognized by Cisco and Oracle". This is just a vanity page. noq (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RU/N. Although I also question the validity of the statement, the article does not state that the subject was Australia's first prop. It states that the subject was the first prop to score a try on his debut. A minor distinction, but one that must be noted. --Bob247 (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's an IT manager. In all likelihood a very good one, but that doesn't make him notable. GcSwRhIc (talk) 11:55, 6 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. Sandstein 05:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Golden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted at AFD in 2010. This version is sufficiently different to avoid deletion by the letter of G4 but still has the same notability issues. It's possible that he has become more notable since then, but I couldn't find any evidence that this is the case. Michig (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Disney's Next Big Thing has a page (very quick look didn't see one) Redirect there, no independent notability for this Josh Golden. If no redirect target thi should be Deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs to be recreated with atleast one ref. Szzuk (talk) 22:10, 7 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. causa sui (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netgear DG834 (series)[edit]

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

And:

Delete. WP is not a product catalogue. From the Netgear DG834 article: "White case with a white removable antenna..." - so what! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Netgear routers are (sufficiently) WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Fits the category perfectly fine and is very similar to any other randomly selected articles in the Category. Has Cites. "White case with a white removable antenna..." is a editing issue, not an AFD issue. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Exit2DOS2000; Netgear routers are particularly notable because of the open-source operating system and the ongoing community work on improving, or even replacing, it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep (but merge individual models into series) --but not because of their intrinsic excellence , but because of the many sources available reviewing them. It probably would be possible to actually find reviews for most individual models, but the treatment by series is none the less preferable. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Product reviews are routine coverage, and don't go toward demonstrating notability. Assertion of sources is not the same as providing sources. No hits in google news, nothing in google scholar, one hit in books but "No preview available" so we can't just assume this is a signifigant mention. None of the sources currently in the article are "reliable" in the wikipedia term of art that would allow them to demonstrate notability. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try again:

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

--Hm2k (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Product reviews are routine coverage, and don't go toward demonstrating notability." That's your opinion, not supported by any guideline or policies. Read WP:ROUTINE carefully, it says nothing about reviews. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Presuming bad faith or extremely misguided nomination after the same editor nominated the overview article of Linksys routers for deletion. It's not worth my time to check if all these articles comply with WP:N when these are WP:IDONTLIKE and WP:JNN nominations. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:21, 9 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. causa sui (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linksys routers[edit]

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

And:

Delete all. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP is not a product catalogue, but our definition of a product catalogue is something that lists prices. We have articles about products, and these are reasonable examples of such. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my argument. My contention is that since we do not prohibit articles about products, and that this article does not meet our own definition of a catalogue, then the rationale given in the nomination is not valid. Given no valid delete rationale, I am voting keep. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, failing which Merge. Linksys routers are WP:NOTABLE.Kittybrewster ☎ 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are they notable? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These products are significantly notable. CyberCat (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any evidence of notability given the use of unreliable sources such forums, wikis and the manufacturers website etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linksys WRV54G router, keep the rest. Product reviews are significant coverage. Linksys routers currently makes no (referenced) claim of notability, but such references are available as Linksys WRT54G series shows. Proper referencing should thus be possible. FCC sources should be reliable as far as they reference technical specifications, same goes for the OpenWRT wiki. However, those sources pretty much list every available device; For considerations of notability they are therefore worthless, and an article like Linksys WRV54G router where they are the only sources cannot stay in its current version. --Pgallert (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also happy with the merge as suggested by W Nowicki. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Linksys WRV54G router is the only article that satisfies WP:N with the sources it already lists (CNET, Linux Journal, eWeek). You probably mean the other way around. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge other articles into Linksys routers. Individual models come and go so are rarely notable by themselves. But a general history would be useful, since this is a "leading brand". I would say one large table instead of zillions of stubby sections that just parrot the specs. Prepend with some prose that talks about how the line evolved. This is what I am proposing for other products as a general compromise. The downside is it might take a while since (ironically) the interest in the computer networking project comes only in spurts. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Linksys routers. The WRT54G is a pretty iconic model and has a more extensive article and should probably be kept (keep) separate. —Ruud 11:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This exactly Terrx (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree --KiR (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linksys routers is proposed for deletion as well, in case you didn't notice. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This page serves as an importance reference point for hackers and enthusiasts alike. Jmccrohan (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, notable and popular routers. Hey Mid (contribs) 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Topics pass WP:N. Linksys WAG300N router, Linksys WRV54G router and Linksys WRTP54G router may be more suitable for merging to Linksys routers, being too short, but at least Linksys WRV54G router has enough references listed to pass WP:N (CNET and Linux Journal are reliable independent sources, and so is eWeek), and I suspect enough can be found for the other ones. This nomination is mostly of the WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Practically all of their products get at least a product announcement article in the IT media, which is more than enough coverage for the main overview article, e.g. [31] [32], PC World / Washington Post, [33] PC Magazine etc. There are 4000+ Google news archive references, most of them quite useful as WP:RS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, of course. These Linksys pages are very valuable, and is the one thing that I use Wikipedia for repeatedly. Complex and diverse data is brought together in a usable way.
Keep. They look fine, refs fine. They don't float boats for many, but they're routers so we can't expect anything except technical data. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just what about Linksys WRT54G series is in violation?? dwfunk4475 19:48, 08 Aug 2011 (MSD)
Comment This trend of grouping a bunch of AFDs into one because the subjects are related is a real nuisance, in my opinion. It multiplies the task of determining what the consensus is for each article a hundred fold. Good luck to whoever closes this - my guess is they will give in to the temptation to just keep everything. causa sui (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. By the way, WRTP54G, the only aricle wich lacked WP:RS at the time of nomination was also very easy to expand, including an AP story about its security flaws in Vonage service. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:55, 8 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 no consensus to delete on any. Cisco 2500 series specifically is kept. A merge is highly suggested for the others. lifebaka++ 00:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 1000[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete all. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge yes, individual permastubs on each model does not make sense. As the biggest player in the field, Cisco product history deserves some coverage somewhere. Irony is that others like Juniper and Avaya seem to have many more articles, for example Juniper M Series. I do see Avaya ERS 8600 is now up for deletion too. I would prefer a narrative article that talks about the evolution of a general product line, perhaps like the "series" articles instead of just a cut-n-paste of the spec sheets. The question is what to call the article and granularity to use. Note for example Cisco Catalyst for the whole product line, but also Cisco Catalyst 1900 and Cisco Catalyst 4500 Series Switches, etc. very inconsistent. If nothing else I can copy these into a sandbox and work on it as time permits. W Nowicki (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cisco routers or something. Don't transfer to a sandbox. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cisco 2500, merge others - the 2500 series is notable in its own right, given its historical market penetration and significance in the field. (Around 1995-96, the 2501 was the default router of choice for small/medium ISPs [34], selling over a million units [35] which is a major achievement for an enterprise router). It has no end of discussion in reliable sources [36] [37] [38]. Indeed the 2501 is still the canonical example of a "modern" TCP/IP router for educational purposes [39] [40] [41] [42]. There is even a healthy subculture devoted to finding interesting ways to destroy the damn things [43]. None of this is even to mention the dozens of certification and textbooks from multiple publishers for the Cisco networking certifications which discuss the operation of the 2501 in comprehensive detail (to the point where you could pass an exam on it). As far as the others go, I don't believe they are independently notable. Thparkth (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cisco 2500 series, delete others. Not or insufficiently referenced. The 2500 could be rescued as there are plenty of external sources. The other three are all a tad too promotional and would thus not only need referencing (which I do not doubt would be possible) but a fundamental rewrite. --Pgallert (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind the merge idea so long as sufficent detail is maintained. Agree that 2500 series should be maintained. Would actually like to see something like Juniper M Series.

Cisco 1000 - Delete - does not cite any references or sources - tagged 2007

Cisco 2500 - Tag with Primary source - relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.

Cisco 837 - Tag with Primary source - relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.

Cisco Valet Routers - Tag with Primary source - relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject.

ASR9000 - Delete - does not cite any references or sources - tagged 2010

LES 953 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge everything into a single article that discusses the history of Cisco routers in general terms (not a product catalog or an exhaustive list of detailed specs). Keep only the sorts of details that are recognized as notable by independent reliable sources. Comparisons with what is already being done with other manufacturers' product lines are not necessarily relevant; see WP:WAX. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, and then consider merging the ones on individual models. As Cisco has long been the major manufacturer in this field, its major product series are independently notable. A total merge would be like merging all Ford automobiles. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Automobiles and routers cannot be compared in this context. They are quite different products. Besides, if there was a different Wikipedian wikiview a merge of all of the Ford automobiles could be a possibility. At present there does not appear to be a clear community consensus on products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - We forget that existence is not notability, and that notability is not inherited. The relevant points of "notable products" can be easily handled in a paragraph or subsection in a larger article. MSJapan (talk) 05:32, 11 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Brändöpojkarna[edit]

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the level this club plays at (6th tier of Finnish football) doesn't appear to grant notability. Giant Snowman 11:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FC Brändöpojkarna plays at Level 6 of the Finnish football league system and is clearly notable. By playing at this level, the club is eligible to compete in the Finnish Cup. Outside of the Finnish football league system there are "hobby leagues" and teams competing in such competitions should be targeted for deletion e.g. Aseman Pallo. (Finnish Gas 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC))
Had the team played in Finnish Cup? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for addition to my shootings list. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teams from Levels 6 (Vitonen) and 7 (Kutonen) of the Finnish football league system are eligible to compete in the Finnish Cup. FC Brändöpojkarna did not enter the 2011 Finnish Cup although they are eligible. A number of Level 7 clubs have participated in the Finnish Cup this season such as Palloiluseura Apollo. The Finnish football league system, although small is extremely dynamic with teams moving up and down the pyramid for example Helsingin Palloseura have won the Finnish Championship nine times and played in the European Cup but from 2000 to 2002 were playing in Level 8 (Seiska). (Finnish Gas 11:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A1 - no context for whatever this is about; quite possibly some are copyvio too. WP:CSD#G1 however does not apply, as there are understandable words. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slogans on earth[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic article Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete A1 no context (insufficient context to identify the article's subject). G1 patent nonsense (a list of random slogans, no actual coherent text). HominidMachinae (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kill it now, tie a sack of bricks to the corpse and drop that thing in the Atlantic. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:58, 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. causa sui (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salute Buturlinovka F.C.[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 14:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also we need sources confirming that several clubs in the town are incarnations of the same club (if they aren't, it's not correct to unite all info into one article). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my negligence - the team has some regional achievements - but are they sufficient or not? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 21:52, 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. causa sui (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya ERS 5500[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Delete all. Non-notable product mostly referenced from its manufacturer. Also, WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Related articles are now listed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as thousands of others. Just a quick check shows many other examples.
- Cisco Products
- Apple Products
- Microsoft Products
- IBM Products
- Nokia Products Geek2003 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid AfD argument. Not that I have listed a who bunch of other routers for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all known internationally, WP:NOTABLE product, informative pages for research. 38.127.152.10 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- If it is notable were are the third party refs? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added several third party refs. -- Geek2003 (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cut-n-paste from spec sheets does not add any value, and these products get out of date quickly. I would add the Avaya VSP-9000 System to the list too. Perhaps one article for each line, e.g. the ERS line, secure router line, etc. would make more sense, with just a general overview and narrative of its evolution instead of marketing bullets. W Nowicki (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or Merge per W Nowicki. Notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all all of these products are used in various managed network offerings. It would be helpful to individuals reseraching what has been installed at thier site to keep these entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskelund (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a service manual or technical manual, -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All these products are used in network scenarios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machismo500 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? Is that relevant in this discussion? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmmmm... Just as I had suspected. We have a clear case of systemic bias. Take two of these and call me in the morning. Dr Alan. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The core products of Avaya are significant enough to merit discussion in the Avaya article, but I don't see much evidence that they are independently notable. Thparkth (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all or merge - For reasons stated above...but feel free to comment as you have done above. --Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All Tag with Primary Source LES 953 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.systemic bias ? I am a just a 10 day old wikipedian.Moreover,If it wasn't me, this voting would not be happening in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machismo500 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avaya ERS5500 series are very widely deployed and used by governments, education, financial and healthcare etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ullapoolus (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Added more content and 3rd citations so the products should now be WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. If you do not agree please identify the page and specifically state what you think is wrong and please give me a detailed explanation of what I can do to help improve the page to meet the requirements. Geek2003 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources I looked at were anything other than routine coverage (product announcments, technical specifications, etc). There is currently no evidence that this satisfies the general notability guideline. I also performed a google search of my own and found nothing. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am going to take this one page at a time. The Avaya ERS 8600 page, in the Further reading section has 4 notable books that covers the product in detail, each are by a separate and independent authors. The references are from the, Electronic Engineering Times, IT World, NetworkWorld, Network Computing, and Cloud Computing. Specific and detailed 3rd party product evaluations were conducted by IPv6 and DISA of this product with detailed results. Additionally a detailed evaluation of the product was accomplished by the 3rd party Tolly Group, and there are many more like it (should I add them also). Please explain how this is just routine coverage. Geek2003 (talk) 18:41, 8 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. Nobody on the "keep" side of things has provided any arguments more useful than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Secure Router 2330[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product mostly referenced from its manufacturer. Also, WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as thousands of others. Just a quick check shows many other examples.
- Cisco Products
- Apple Products
- Microsoft Products
- IBM Products
- Nokia Products Geek2003 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that other stuff exists is not a valid AfD argument. Note that Apple,IBM and Microsoft products are rather more notable than this router. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all known internationally, WP:NOTABLE product, informative pages for research. 38.127.152.10 (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only passing mention in the two outside references, otherwise not independently referenced. Makes no claim of notability. --Pgallert (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tag with Primary source LES 953 (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable third-party mentions, media coverage in general. I didn't see anything that wasn't affiliated with company on both Google and Yahoo! searches. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ You didn't look very hard, I just added several and will add more later when I get time. Geek2003 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 vote is allowed. Bejinhan talks 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Secure Router 2330 is widely deployed in unified branch applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ullapoolus (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My model of toaster is widely deployed in kitchens throughout the world. Shall I write an article about it? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I have added more content and 3rd citations so the products should now be WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS, WP:VERIFY. If you do not agree please identify and state what you think is wrong and please give me a detailed explanation of what I can do to help improve the page to meet the requirements. Geek2003 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- only one vote is allowed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references that I have looked at to date have been anything other than routine coverage (product release notes, etc). Is there a source or three in particular that is being held up as satisfying the general notability guide? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge/expand into a general article on their routers, which would be the correct level of aggregation. Major products from major companies can be notable, but usually would be much better merged, especially as the information will otherwise be somewhat repetitive. None of the deletion arguments here give any indication why merging is unsuitable, and, according to WP:Deletion policy, merging is preferred over deletion. ~

So if I understand what you are asking, you would like to put all the Secure Routers on one page is that correct? That page would contain many products, and would be a very big page. How about if we group the Secure Routers like this:

Secure Router Series 8000 Page
- Secure Router 8012
- Secure Router 8008
- Secure Router 8004
- Secure Router 8002

Secure Router 4100, 3100, 2300 page
- Secure Router 4134
- Secure Router 3120
- Secure Router 2330
- Advanced Gateway 2330

Secure Router 1000 Series page
- Secure Router 1004
- Secure Router 1002
- Secure Router 1001

Secure Router 200 Series page
- Secure Router 252
- Secure Router 222

Please let me know. Geek2003 (talk) 00:05, 9 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 00:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Genome Assembly[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE scientific 'hypothesis' cited solely to a PR release and a pre-publication article by its claimant. No indication that this specific hypothesis (as opposed to unrelated uses of the phrase "Parallel Genome Assembly") has received any notice in the scientific literature. Only third-party hit I could find is to Mun, Johnathan (2003). Faith Journey. City: Xulon Press. ISBN 1591606578. -- which is hardly a WP:RS for scientific claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This sounds almost like pseudoscience by Olga Lepeshinskaya to me ("Complex Animals and Plants Originated from Prebiotic Chemistry" [44]), but who cares? Biophys (talk) 13:07, 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, Courcelles 07:43, 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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lake (English Defence League)[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG Pass a Method talk 06:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple cites in 'academic' and newspaper sources. Mr Lake is a little publicity shy but that should not extend to deleting his Wikipedia article :-) Francium12 11:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm satisfied that there are enough citations of reliable sources to show his notability. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons previously stated, and added notability that he is one of the few leaders of the EDL about whom much is known and that what is known shows him in a different mould to the usual EDL crowd. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to English Defence League. Coverage in independent reliable sources of this thing is purely about his connection tyo and activeties of that organisation. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons previously stated. Arctic hobo (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to meet GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the case the article is kept, it should however change the title away from the awkwardly titled "Alan Lake (English Defence League)". I don't know what could be used instead, but perhaps some have suggestions. – Bellatores (t.) 23:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is a bit of an awkward title but I was struggling to think what else to use. Francium12 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename unless we are to identify all evil persons by the most evil organization they belong to as an epithet. Stick to his name, and balance the article. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is already an Alan Lake. Do you have any suggestions? The guy isn't notable for being a computer expert but is for funding a far-right movement Francium12 00:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why disambiguation exists. If the person is only notable for being a funder of EDL, then it is clear he is insufficiently notable for a WP article. Wikipedia does not have articles on every person funding a group, by the way. By saying that he is not notable otherwise, you are giving a strong reason for deletion per BLP1E. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic Nick Griffin should be deleted as he is only notable due to his far-right activism as well. I'm not convinced. Anyway, if we disambiguate we could have this article as Alan Lake and the other as Alan Lake (actor). As the actor was only getting 80 hits a day prior to creation of this article I would go along with a disambiguation. Francium12 23:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he notable for being one of the most prominent members of a notable group. No objection to a better title, but the current one is not wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't support keeping this so called biography - its just an attack written by opponents of the person and hosted on the wikipedia servers. (any publicity is good publicity) If its kept it needs renaming improving. - as per collect Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I first started creating articles relating to the British far-right editors seemed to think i was a sympathiser in trying to get Stop Islamisation of Europe on the fornt page via DYK. Now I am opponent creating 'attack pages'. Is it possible to edit these topics without everyone thinking you have an agenda? Francium12 20:54, 7 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 no consensus. The article has been considerably rewritten during the course of this AFD, and nobody but the nominator wanted this article to be deleted. Merging is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the article's talk page, at Talk:Premier League, or at some other relevant venue. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barclays Player of the Season[edit]

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

This is an award that has very few google hits. It's mentioned but it's unclear how notable it is. More importantly this article has 0 context. It has a badly formed list of winners for the past 7 years. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Barclays Premier League. I am not sure if this list is notable on its own. The list can be made into a new section. Miguel AG (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Miguel. I had tagged this article for speedy deletion as a duplication of Premier League Player of the Month as I first thought the editor had switched Season for Month by accident. Also, the section Barclays_Premier_League#Player_and_manager_awards does not mention this award at all while several others, like Manager of the Year etc. are mentioned there. I removed the tag when I found some mentions in individual season articles. I now even find "... of the Decade" awards mentioned here and there so this might get messier. --DeVerm (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Editor has removed the AfD message from the article combined with other edit. --DeVerm (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, not enough material for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 12:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can I ask why a list of Player of the Month winners is worthy of an article, but a list of Players of the Season isn't? – PeeJay 14:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think 65 references plus 21 footnotes is what makes the difference. There are now 4 references in the article and all 4 fail WP:V. Furthermore, I searched and could not find any either. I am still not convinced that this award really exists separately from the player of the month awards. --DeVerm (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep verifiable, noted by independent sources, annual award is surely more notable than sub award for same thing dished out 10 times a year. article expanded and referenced. --ClubOranje^T 11:56, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOR:CON[edit]

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

This is a non-notable, non-governmental "unofficial" scale created and used only by The Weather Channel (TWC). It is rarely, if ever, used outside that program. Darren 23^Edits|Mail 03:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per OP's reasoning. It does not meet WP:N as it is an officially unrecognized feature applied exclusively within one network. Specifically violates criterion 4 of the general notability guideline. ★ Auree _talk 03:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not qualify for speedy deletion in any way. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't know about notability but I'm pretty sure that this page does not belong. Its title is a bad one for starters. Also blatantly fails WP:MOS and WP:NOTHOWTO. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and is either a copyvio (being a reprint of details from some source), or is original research. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched, and cannot find any evidence of it being a copyvio. On what basis do you suspect this? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry I wasn't clear: I am not saying it is even likely to be a copyvio. However, assuming that it is not, then the material is OR. It could be argued that (wherever the source is, a video?) the article content is sufficiently rephrased for it to not be a copyvio, but it has to be essentially a paraphrase of someone's content with no encyclopedic value added. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. A trigger-happy admin could probably try to delete this under CSD A7 due to the tenuous assertion of notability, but since it's already here, let's not do that. The only external non-TWC sources that refer to this scale are blogs and forums (which fail WP:RS), and there are no peer-refereed publications that even mention it. The article creator also made several redirects pointing to this page that ought to be nuked alongside this page. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:N, specifically in that the only sources either fail WP:RS, or are not independent of the subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The definition and description of an acronym/phrase (only used by one particular commercial entity not, in widespread use elsewhere), Wikipedia is not a dictionary seems to apply in this case. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In-house product of TWC. Definitely a neat measurement scale, but not nearly notable enough for its own article. If it begins to see some usage outside of TWC then, and only then, should it be recreated Carson (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, as this appears to be unused in the actual weather community. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:36, 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 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Friedan[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h index of 22 and thousands of cites. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Being a MacArthur Fellow is already sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C2; also has a major prize from the American Physical Society - so certainly passes WP:PROF#C1 as well. Nsk92 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MacArthur Fellows can be presumed to be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (Google scholar citation counts 1794, 1012, 796, etc, about ten times higher than would convince me) and #C2 (the Onsager prize). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per User:David Eppstein — Finemann (talk) 23:08, 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaloq[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable corporation, nothing in google news archive aside from press releases and passing mentions. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per lack of notable media mentions as I didn't see anything on both Google and Yahoo! search engines. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources to establish notability. Google searches showing job adverts, test questions, press releases but nothing being written about the company. noq (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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 per WP:MADEUP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tray Golf[edit]

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

Seems to be made up, original research, unverifiable, and non-notable. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 01:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - Clearly made up; no reason for this to run for a week. VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy madeup. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, you cannot speedily delete something madeup (not including blatant hoaxes), as of the following timestamp. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 01:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splash Amarillo Waterpark[edit]

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

unremarkable small waterpark. Only significant coverage is around a single event (fire). Prod was contested pointing to fire as evidence of notability. RadioFan (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as waterpark is subject of ongoing coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources both locally and regionally and crosses both the verifiabiluiy and notability thresholds. (I have significant;y improved the article's sourcing since this nomination was made.) - Dravecky (talk) 21:37, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little Green Men Games[edit]

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

unremarkable video game company. Not clear how this might meet WP:CORP. Article created by a SPA promoting this company's and it's products. Prod contested without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no actual evidence of notability. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:09, 31 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) • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside their games, cannot find enough sources for GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of any sources. I didn't find anything on both Google and Yahoo! aside from a Slotshero page. SwisterTwister talk 02:19, 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 00:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Farm[edit]

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

unremarkable video game. Article created by a SPA promoting this company's game. Prod contested without improvement. RadioFan (talk) 00:45, 31 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) • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources for GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:20, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Borden[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Very promotional in tone. Only sources are primary (twitter, facebook, etc.) or promotional. No reliable secondary sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, albums on own label. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:35, 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, Courcelles 00:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many of these sources are event listings, the artist's twitter account, a listing of her music, and two wix.com addreses which seems to be a website builder. So those sources are not definitively independent. What's left is one decent biographical source from EvidentOfficial and one from theSOP. TheSOP's about page reads as follows:

For over 6 years, theSOP has been a cutting edge news organization with the goal to provide novice writers, student journalists, amateur broadcasters and unpublished authors the opportunity to showcase their talents while practicing ethical journalism and broadcasting in a professional environment that mirrors all major media outlets.

I'm not very thrilled with the scope or quality of this source, considering it is a student publication, so I'm not counting it for very much. That leaves only one decent source, and that's not really enough to cover WP:MUSICBIO. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Doesn't leave any decent sources, EvidentOfficial shows no signs of being a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable mentions, none of which were found on both Google and Yahoo! aside from social networking sites and a YouTube video. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chappelle's Show skits[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In-universe, minimally sourced. No way to source most of this. WP:IINFO, WP:NOTPLOT. Last AFD closed in 2007 as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IINFO, WP:NOTPLOT most of the sources seem to be non-independent too. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 23 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 00:05, 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. People disagree about whether this is only a DICDEF or whether the underlying custom is notable and merits encyclopedic treatment. Sandstein 05:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yimakh shemo[edit]

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

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary; foreign language or otherwise (WP:DICDEF). Avi (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criteria of independent notability of a foreign language phrase which appears in English texts carrying specific cultural meaning, as per comparison with the 452 articles listed under Category:Hebrew words and phrases In ictu oculi (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are third-party sources indicating that the phrase is used in English, and they seem to rise to a required level of notability. (My !vote is weak because I'm not sure whether the phrase warrants a stand-alone article or inclusion in some glossary or list.) Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to contain a significant amount of original research. The there is hardly any secondary source cited here discussing the use of the phrase. The article is mostly assembled by finding quotes in sources that are WP:PRIMARY for the purpose of this article. Furthermore, almost half the article advances a theory that the notion of Yimakh shemo predates that term, but the sources cited do not make the connection. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FuFoFuEd is quite right that most of the sources on the page are primary sources, but there are four secondary sources, compared to more than 20 primary ones. This seems to be too many primary sources and perhaps too much original research rather than too few secondary sources or an inherent lack of notability. Cnilep (talk) 23:23, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FuFoFuEd makes legimate criticism about the Amalek connection, - fixed: overweight; nonrelevant primary sources deleted and non-scholarly anecdote from Bobker (2008) beefed up with more substantial ref from Mex (2006) on Yiddish. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:NOR. The page creator is attempting to build a page where none exists, and the buildup of references citing usage of the term smacks of OR. Yoninah (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the page creator yes I am attempting to create/build a page where none previously existed. That is what create a page means. The article has 7 or 8 refs from actual dictionaries, books on dialect, customs, festivals describing the use of the term. To which I added following 13 or 15 illustrations. If the 13 or 15 illustrations of actual usage are not OR if they agree with the 7 or 8 refs from dictionaries and books on dialect and customs. In comparison with almost any of the 452 other articles listed under Category:Hebrew words and phrases this goes way beyond. However I'm quite happy to go with that provided it's consistent, and can go to the other 452 articles listed under Category:Hebrew words and phrases and see how many can be nominated for AfD. At a brief look, I'm guessing that if this doesn't pass then 150-250 out of 452 should be deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC) e.g. at random from those 452, let's AfD Hakham.[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. -- Avi (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the reality is that in AfD discussions one decision does tend to then carry on into the rest of the category - and a large number of the articles in Category:Hebrew words and phrases aren't sourced. This is. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a dictionary. To whatever extent this phrase is relevant to this encyclopedia, it will be in the context of articles on actual topic— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 07:53, July 31, 2011
Keep - The phrase is an important phrase in the Hebrew culture. The current article should be improved and any OR removed, but we SHOULD have an article with this title. Linguogeek (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "an important phrase in the Hebrew culture"^{[citation needed]}. So far no secondary sources for that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Using an alternative (Google suggested) English spelling, I was able to find some secondary sources [45] "Yemach+shemo" "Yemach+shemo". It's not clear no me if they're reliable, and they certainly don't appear to be in-depth--a paragraph at the most in each. So, this seems far more suitable for Wiktionary entry with a soft redirect from here to there. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gefen books [46] appears reasonably reliable, despite not having a Wikipedia entry, but the tone in that book strikes me as purple prose. Something more academically written would be preferable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In more academic contexts I was able to find [47] about the Jewish traditional approach/attitudes to memory, which encompasses several other phrases, e.g. zakhor. If someone wants to write an article about that general topic, this could become a redirect there. There are a few more hits in Google Scholar, but don't appear particularly useful. "Yemach+shemo" FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GS also indicates that the following paper may be of some relevance under the linguistic aspect, but I don't access to it, so I don't know how much coverage is given to this expression, it could be just a passing mention: Bernstein, C. 2006. Representing Jewish Identity through English. In J. Brutt-Griffler & C. Evans Davies (eds), English and Ethnicity: Signs of Race Series Publication. London: Macmillan Palgrave. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:DICDEF. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH as explained above. Ovadyah (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could one of the people arguing to delete per DICDEF please explain to me why this is a dicdef? I'd expect to find about 10% of the material already in this (not very well developed) article in a dictionary. --Dweller (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yimakh shemo is a Hebrew expression added on to a name of a Jew-persecutor, such as "Adolf Hitler, yimakh shemo", or "Haman, yimakh shemo". Similarly, religious Jews add on shlit'a (a Hebrew abbreviation for "He should live for many long and good years") to an important rabbi's name, such as "Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, shlit"a". Both terms belong in Wikitionary; there's not much else to say about them. Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's odd, because this article already says quite a lot more than that. --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Take a close look at the references. Most are examples of the phrase in use, not scholarly explanations of the subject. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fantastic. Why would they need to be scholarly explanations of the subject? We need reliable sources to prove it's notable and then we can expand from there. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        By "scholarly explanations" I meant third-party sources which discuss the term, not just use it. As it is now, the article suffers from OR as a collection of citations which just use the term, not explain it. Yoninah (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I struggle to understand that definition of OR. At any rate, OR is a reason to improve an article, not an argument for deletion. --Dweller (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The normal improvement for OR is to delete it, which would leave little beyond a DICTDEF. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just found shlit"a under Honorifics in Judaism. This makes sense to me, as it compiles many different honorifics into one article. Maybe there is a broader category in which to include yimakh shemo? Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a notable term and we have more than enough for it to pass DICDEF, it should have its own article. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I honestly can't understand any of the rationales being made for deletion. The subject seems to be notable and there's far more material already than you'd find in a dictionary definition. It's a keeper. --Dweller (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we create an article for the word is that way? Hundreds of thousands of references are available! Imagine awesome examples, "is good", "is nice", "is pretty", all impeccably sourced! FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to stay away from to be (except that each of its dozen references are secondary sources). More seriously, per the much-cited Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition [...] but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well." The question is whether other notable information about yimakh shemo can be reliably reported. I think such information exists, but accept that the question is open to debate. Cnilep (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dweller, the "expansion" seems to be calculated just to show usage, and does not add anything to the understanding of the phrase, which should be on wiktionary, and not wikipedia. As mentioned above, we can show usage examples of any word or phrase, that does not mean that the phrase belongs on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of additional sources that are reliable and go beyond DICDEF:

(1), (2) --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avi

It's easy to say that another editor's sources are OR, and hearing you I'm even convinced myself, (and I'm the one who has been building the article while you've been attempting to have it deleted) but I went and checked, please count them:

- Secondary sources Steinmetz (2005), Bermant (1974) Schimel (2002), Rosenfeld (1990), Coldoff (1988), Wolfram (2006), Lehmann (1996), the editor of Scholem (1923, ed. 1995), Rotenberg (2003), Borowitz (1999), Yelin (1984), Swartz (1998), Wistinetzki (1999), Institute on Religion and Public Life (2003), The National Jewish monthly (1928), New York Magazine (1997), Sh'ma (1995), Zangwill/Nahshon (2006), Rav Shach on Chumash (2004), Aḳademyah ha-leʼumit ha-Yiśreʼelit le-madaʻim (1969), Cohen (2004) Klauck p213. Bobker (2008) Wex (2006) Detweiler (1967) Goldman (p250) Haber (2001) Goldman (2004) Frey (1812) ... these are alll commenting as secondary sources on the phrase or its use.

- Primary sources Schloss (2000), Meʼir ben Mordekhai Ṿalakh (2002), Ilan Stavans (2000 citing Alberto Gerchunoff 1910), Jewish currents (1990), Lifschitz (2003), Kranzler (1991), Seltzer (2006), Eliach (1982), Kaplan (2003), Wolfthal (2004)/Cuneo (2002) are primary sources.

- And four more sources in the related terms section on damnatio memoriae

Now the above prompts the question, is the objection to this article joing the other 452 in the Category:Hebrew words and phrases due to the lack of linguistic WP:Notability of this term related to the other 452. Because if it isn't,

then what is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take for instance Lawrence Schimel Found tribe - 2002 "The worst curse in Hebrew is "Yemach shemo!" May his name be erased!" This is not in-depth coverage. Nobody doubted the expression is verifiable. The Wikipedia article supplements marginal secondary sources like this by quote mining a ton of primary sources, resulting in an article longer than any coverage in secondary sources I can find. Publishing new essays on word usage is not in the mission statement of Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FuFoFuEd - by all means, if you link to a phrase/word entry you have done, and I can see how you have sourced/refed it am happy to learn from Wikipedia best practice. But over-referencing aside, is your objection to this article joing the other 452 in the Category:Hebrew words and phrases due to the lack of linguistic WP:Notability of this term related to the other 452 or is it something else?

As FuFoFuEd says above, we know the phrase is used, and if you want to pen an essay about it, you are more than welcome, but that is WP:OR and belongs elsewhere on the internet. My opinion, and it is no more than that, at this point remains that there is not enough critical commentary about the phrase extant to make it worthy of an article in the encyclopedia project here. For example, I could not find an entry for "Yemach Shemo" or similar spellings in the online Encyclopedia Judaica, although there are over 100 references and multiple full articles on Jesus. -- Avi (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avi,

You say that you "know" the phrase is used, I didn't see where FuFoFuEd said that he knew the term was used, but either way most Wikipedia users wouldn't know, and that's why also why the phrase has entries in linguistic works like Steinmetz (2005), Wex (2006), etc. cultural works like Bermant (1974) etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. So now what I'm trying to understand is why it's acceptable for Wikipedia readers to read the other 452 articles in the Category:Hebrew words and phrases, but not this one? So why is this phrase unacceptable, but those 452 are okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The others may not be OK for all I know (although see FuFoFuEd below). There are many articles in many categories which should be deleted, in my opinion, but I do not spend all my wikitime on nominating AfDs. We are all volunteers and may choose where to spend our time and effort. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not, and has never been, a valid reason to keep an article. My nomination is not meant to be part of a dastardly plot to destroy your on-wiki work; this article caught my eye due to my involvement with the articles on Yeshu, and, in my (and others') opinion, it does not meet wiki notability requirements. I understand your frustration; I've had articles (well, at least 1) that I have created be deleted at AfD. That is part of the wiki process. -- Avi (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avi. No, with respect I don't think so Avi, this is not part of the Wikipedia process. I've written articles on foreign languages terms before and not had this happen since normally language articles are of interest to language buffs, they don't normally get listed under AfD for one particular religious grouping where people who have never voted on a language AfD get drawn in. This completely innocuous, uncontroversial WP:notable article has been leapt upon, as you say above due to your/Jayjg/Slrubenstein involvement with the article on Yeshu, where yimakh shemo is mentioned, but not explained. I added this article because, like most Wikipedia readers, I wouldn't know what yimakh shemo meant. I didn't know all the history about Haman and Amalek, I didn't know it had an entry on Yiddish wikipedia. I can only conclude, based on the term clearly being WP:notable that this AfD is for reasons of religious sensitivity, you don't want this having an article entry on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I have no problem with this being on wiktionary, and a Wikipedia:Soft redirect pointing there. I don't know Yiddish well enough to read the article and see if it can add anything here; nor do the policies of YiWIki have bearing here and vice-versa. The proper place for phrase definitions is Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Phrasebook. As I said before, even the Encyclopedia Judaica does not have an entry on "Yemach Shemo", b/c the phrase is inherently not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The wikimedia project space encompasses more than just an encyclopedia, and this should be on Witktionary. -- Avi (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, if you want to try a copy paste of the entire article to Wiktionary and see what Wiktionary admins say, then be my guest, but I think they would view that there was too much cultural, historical content. Wiktionary is for Dicdefs. The fact that the term has an entry on Yiddish Wikipedia and not Hebrew Wikipedia probably confirms (what a linguist would expect) that a foreign-language term only has cultural currency as a specific foreign language term in a foreign language, which is why Wex, Steinmetz et al discuss it. Does Encyclopedia Judaica not discuss yimach shemo under Purim, Haman, Hitler or Amalek? Does Encyclopedia Judaica have an article on Hebrew curses? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemach shemo is a Hebrew term, not Yiddish. Strange that it's even on Yiddish Wikipedia, unless they're including it in their list of juicy curses... Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That category probably deserves some scrutiny. In the past when WP:OTHERSTUFF was pointed to me, I nominated some of the seemingly unwarranted ones for deletion. There are also thousands of articles about software products, but that does not mean that any particular article is justified based on the existence of the others. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick inspection +95% of the articles in that category are not about words or expressions and usage thereof, but rather about concepts or entities with Hebrew names, which makes the category name fairly misleading. E.g., it contains Ketuvim, Krav Maga, Likud. I did find one questionable article, Maamor, but it's written as a dab page. YMMV. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Hebrew acronym is used in English. And this article isn't a simple dictionary entry; it is valuable content. I came looking for the abbreviation in Hebrew characters and found it only here, so it was definitely helpful to me. I'm concerned about the arbitrary deletion of worthwhile content off of Wikipedia. There are a lot of very frivolous articles and content on this site, so the arbitrary complete deletion of worthwhile content like this seems to me to be pointless and contrary to Wikipedia's role as a source of knowledge on nearly every remotely notable public subject of interest. Big Mac (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym? And the counterargument to WP:EVERYTHING is policy in this case--WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOR. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article at present is much more than a dictionary entry, but a discussion about the related custom. Being sourced, it's not original research either. In my experience, most widely used phrases of this sort do have sources, and can support an article even if what was intially there is just a definition. Indeed, all articles are supposed to start with a definition!. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being sourced, it's not original research either."? Seriously? I think you need to review WP:SYNTH. WP:OR can (and often does) have lots of sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 7 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. Sandstein 05:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Spencer (video game designer)[edit]

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

A video game designer. Can't find any reliable references about him. I only can find his name listed as one of the many developers on some games. Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entry for him at MobyGames http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,205890/ provides reliable evidence of his work as MobyGames only allows entries that are verified by evidence such as credit videos, screenshots or manuals. The LinkedIn profile for him http://www.linkedin.com/in/spence2000 also provides further evidence of his work from co-worker reccomendations.

This provides reliable references not only that he exists, but also that his works can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.161.239 (talk) 10:12, 24 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) • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The moby games link can't be used since the Video Game Wikiproject has listed that source as being completely unreliable on the grounds that the site is user submitted with no evidence of editorial oversite. It did state this the site could be used for a prilimary search for obscure games as a starting off point but it can't be used as a citation in an article. I don't know about the other link though.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:ELPEREN, linkedin links are never to be allowed as a reference and generally should not be in the external link section. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case delete since with the removal of those two sites the article has no sources at all.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"no evidence of editorial oversite."? Moby Games requires physical evidence of all information listed on the site to be approved by qualified approvers. Without evidence, it is not accepted on the site. That's why mobygames is a reliable source of factual information verified by an independant 3rd party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.164.45 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence to support this since the relevant wikiproject (WP:VG) has deemed it to not be reliable or have any editorial oversite. Not to mention there is no other citations in the article so there is no third party coverage.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:22, 29 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, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable BIO. Profile page or credit listing is not really an indication of notability, no matter how reliable the publisher is. I don't see any other broad coverage on the subject to pass WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant guidelines: Sources should be "Independent of the subject". "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent. It is common for Games professionals to create their own mobygames page and cannot be assumed to be an independent source (hence why it's listed as non suitable source). Similarly, linkedin pages are always created by the subject.

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed: Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in History of violence against LGBT people in the United States). See m:Wikipeople for a proposed genealogical/biographical dictionary project. This person is not well known, famous or notorious. There are many games designers more famous than this person without wikipedia pages.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The user who created this page has no list of other created pages, the account was created solely for the creation of this page. This makes it likely the user is the subject of the page and is using wikipedia as a means of self promotion. This is strictly against guidelines. 46.208.211.1 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I googled him and the article appears to be genuine, however I couldn't find anything that demonstrates he's notable. Szzuk (talk) 22:17, 7 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. Sandstein 05:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew wamsley[edit]

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

Convicted of murdering his parents in Texas. While there is news coverage in the Dallas-Fort Worth papers, I'm unable to find any news coverage outside of Texas and only a couple of mentions elsewhere in Texas. Just a "routine" murder. WP:NOTNEWS. Bgwhite (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All murders are horrible and there is nothing "special" about his wretched crime. Fails WP:PERPETRATOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than one involved in this crime. doesnt seem to fail wp:oneevent.. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There's always more than one person involved in a crime (suspect and victim). Doesn't mean we have to keep every murder that has more than one killer. What do you mean by "doesnt seem to fail wp:oneevent"? Also, while researching on what makes a murder notable or not, I've never found a murder/crime you didn't say keep on. (only looked at around 40 however). What do you think is the threshold for a murder not being notable? Bgwhite (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it makes sense to put it as an example under "Historical Cases" under "Parricide" and cut out portions of it? Allycat1208 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One "true crime" book was written about the murder, however, I'm not sure if that is enough to meet notability requirements. Location (talk) 15:17, 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) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PERPETRATOR. As for the book, is this book reliable and notable itself? Beagel (talk) 19:05, 6 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 no consensus. Courcelles 00:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Selin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject of the article comes up a lot on the internet, but every link I've checked is either a primary, unreliable source, a link to a forum discussion, or a simple mention of Selin in context of him being the CEO of a gambling company. Also the article was written in a promotional tone with a lot of dubious claims and the author seems to edit only articles related to Bodog gambling company. The article also mentions his success in poker which is far beyond inducing enough notability on its own. Rymatz (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is very much in need of cleanup from trivia and promotional tone, but sources do indicate that he's at least something of a profile in his business. At least in Swedish-lanuage sources there are several non-trivial mentions of him, that turn up easily by oggling. The existing "va.se" reference is from Veckans Affärer, one of two major Swedish business weeklies, and is a combination of industry profile and interview with him. I added another reference to a business news site. Tomas e (talk) 18:23, 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) 00:01, 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 merge to Kiyohiko Azuma. Courcelles 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inma no Ranbu[edit]

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

Search for reliable third-party sources could not be found to pass WP:NOTE or WP:BK. Article was originally deleted via a prod, but later restored with no further evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Azuma??? I generally don't like deleting articles that might be boosted up to minimal acceptability with some work, but this one doesn't seem to have much chance of that. Without any reliable proof that Kiyohiko Azuma and Joji Junokuchi are one and the same person, I don't see much hope for this. And if they are the same person, then merge it with the Azuma article. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I misspelled it. It's Jonokuchi. The Azuma article has a reference, but it's to the Mandarake website -- they're a Japanese bookstore, but I don't think it's a reliable source for Wikipedia. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:37, 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) 00:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the creator's article. Whether or not this is notable, it's by a notable creator and should be mentioned in their article. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 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 Turkish National Movement.. Seems obvious enough to close without a 2nd relisting DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment of the Turkish national movement[edit]

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

This article is nothing but a collection of article summaries.
The term "establishment of the Turkish national movement" is not notable.
- "establishment of the Turkish National Movement" -Llc 5, we understand that only Hamit Palabiyik used this term. All of other samples are nothing but Wikipedia's "invention".
Sourced information can be transferred to the article Turkish national movement.

Takabeg (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.

This looks more like a good candidate for a simple merge. Why delete? Srnec (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want you can merge them with adding reliable sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful bits to Turkish National Movement. No reason for an independent article called Establishment of the Turkish national movement. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:19, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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. How on earth this is still open is far beyond me. There doesn't seem to be any consensus; if retitling is needed, it can be boldy done, if it's still felt deletion is required then a new nom should be made instead of having this languish on a two-month-old AfD page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bitlis[edit]

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

I can find only other "Battle of Bitlis" in google books,

McMeekin refers to another "Battle of Bitlis" which took place in 1914,^[1] Fatih Ünal calls this "battle" "Bitlis Rebellion" or "Molla Selim (Mullah Selim) Rebellion"^[2]

Erickson refers to another "Battle of Bitlis" which was engaged by the 1st Expeditionary Force.^[3]

Both battle are not same as the "Battle of Bitlis" explained in this article.

If this battle had continued about 6 months (March 2-August 24, 1916), it's very difficult for us to deal with this article as a battle.
Sourced information can be transferred to articles such as Military career of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk#Caucasus Campaign, 1916–1917, Caucasus Campaign#Operations etc.

Takabeg (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.

Sources[edit]

^ Sean McMeekin, The Berlin-Baghdad Express: The Ottoman Empire and Germany's Bid for World Power, Harvard University Press, 2010, ISBN 9780674057395, p. 243.
^ Fatih Ünal, "Reflections of the Second Proclamation of the Ottoman Parliamentary System on Eastern Anatolia and Its Effect on the Armenian-Kurdish Relations", Review of Armenian Studies, Number 10, Volume 4 - 2006.
^ Edward J. Erickson, Ottoman Army effectiveness in World War I: A Comparative Study, Taylor & Francis, 2007, ISBN 9780415770996, p. 67.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep War, campaign and battle are different concepts. The war was First World War, the campaign was Caucasus Campaign. But within this campaign there were many battles . Most of these battles have articles in Wikipedia. (like Battle of Sarikamish) So Battle of Bitlis also deserves an article of its own. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult for me to keep. Because there is no mention about "Bitlis Muharebesi " even in the series of official researches of the General Staff of the Republic of Turkey ("Bitlis Muharebesi"). But I can write about, for example "Birinci Tortum Muharebesi". If it were sources, I would have developed this article. I don't want to do "original research" :)) Takabeg (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this battle is known under some diffirent name in Turkish books? Grouping continuous campaigns of WWI into battles is not easy. --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:22, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure how this argument works. Came to this page to check location of Bitlis on a map. Just dropped a reference into the article. Bitlis was a point in the successful eastern campaign that made Kemal into the great hero positioned to lead Turkey. All of the Kemal, Turkey, and WWI articles related to the Ottomans need attention. you guys are nothing if not ambitious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have fixed and checked this reference. It is viable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Checked some Russian sources.
NG Korsun. Pervaia mirovaia voina na Kavkazskom fronte. 1946. pp. 71-74. To describe Turkish 2nd Army offensive and Russian counteroffensive in July-August 1916 he uses term "Ognot operation".

[48] EV Maslovskii. Mirovaia voina na Kavkazskom fronte, 1914- 1917 gg.. 1933. ch. 26. He describes battles near Bitlis in 1-2 paragraphs but do not use name "Battle of Bitlis".

[49] William Edward David Allen, Paul Muratoff Caucasian Battlefields: A History of the Wars on the Turco-Caucasian Border. Chapter 37. "The Offensive of the Turkish Second Army, August-September 1916."

There certainly were battles near Bitlis in July-August 1916, but, apparently, "Battle of Bitlis" is not established term.--DonaldDuck (talk) 04:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RetitleSince its agreed that the events took place, & that there are sources for them, can we find a title that does not imply more than the sources demonstrate . I suggest Bilitis campaign, 1916. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can deat with the Ottoman offensive under the title such as August offensive of the Ottoman Second Army (1916), Offensive of the Ottoman Seconde Army. August-September 1916. If we focus on only "Bitlis", article will become "Nazarbekov's abandonment of Bitlis" or "Nazarbekov's retreat from Bitlis". Takabeg (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't understand the rationale to rename. The battle is a fact and it is quite important . It was later on mentioned in one of Mustafa Kemal's parliamentary speeches . The title is also appropriate because the battle was fought mainly around Bitlis. I don't aggree with the suggestion offensive or abandonment. In all battles one side attacks and finally one side abandones. That's no reason to rename a battle. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:05, 23 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.