The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  08:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable content, tagged since March 2009. Topic’s website does not appear to be active or been updated since 07/12/05. Buttons (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing to meet our inclusion-worthiness threshold owing to lack of independent and substantial published sources on the article subject. Carrite (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is unlikely to become anything greater than a stub due to lack of coverage and no evidence of updates. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:16, 16 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources other than two very passing mentions in a Malay newspaper ([1], [2]). Posting the lyrics is probably a copyvio. Mkativerata (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG . 2 passing mentions is not sufficient. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable song. Keb25 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails notability per WP:NSONGS. A search turned up download sites that attests that it exist and nothing of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 10:29, 13 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  08:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qing conquest theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:Or and WP:SYN. No theory of such name seems to exist (see also here), the article is rather pieced together in synthetical fashion from various references none devoted mainly to the topic. The relevant core about the Qing's stagnancy could easily be covered in other articles such as on the dynasty itself, if it has not already long happened. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The OR and synthesis are clear, but an additional concern is the use of Wikipedia to promote a term no-one else is using: a Google search for this phrase throws up thousands of hits, but as near as I can tell every one of those hits comes from Wikipedia and its derivatives. This seems to be a classic case of WP:NEOLOGISM. Kanguole 23:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (though willing to be persuaded) - hmm, this appears to be tricky but it is not. The theory as described in the article can certainly be found in the literature and is even taught in some relevant classes at the college level, at least sometimes. The basic story can be found in numerous reliable sources, some of which (Allen, Maddison, Pomeranz refers to the theory though he disagrees) are already in the article. The main question is really whether the title "Qing conquest theory" is appropriate. I'm only familiar with English language sources on the topic and it is true that this particular title is not generally used, AFAIK. However, there appear to be numerous Chinese language sources in the article, and while I cannot read them it does look like at least some of them are reliable, so perhaps the title is a translation from a term that is used in Chinese literature. I'm voting "Keep" because the theory presented in the article is definitely not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The title of the article might be, but then it needs to be moved, not deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - huh, I just noticed that the two users here - the creator of the article and the nominator of this AfD have some kind of long running bad blood feud [3]. Aren't you guys under an interaction ban with each other something (if not, perhaps you should be)? And then, the first comment on this AfD was made by Kanguole who was canvassed by GPM to comment here [4], and given his previous comments on the article page, I'm sure GPM had the expectation of getting exactly what he got when he left that message on Kanguole's talk page, a delete vote (for the record, I'm actually not opposed to canvassing, but it is what it is). This whole thing's starting to smell a bit fishy to me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing fishy here. I canvassed both Kanguole and Teeninvestor who hold opposing views then. Since noone else participated on talk, I notified nobody else. That makes me almost Solomonic, I guess. Correction: I overlooked the user with the red box, well that happens when one uses extravagant designs. I am going to notify him too. Well, he is blocked. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except you're perfectly aware that one of these two is not active on Wikipedia anymore (since apparently you had something to do with him leaving), and only one would respond. It's a bit strange to call this "Solomonic" - crafty, yes, but not "Solomonic". Anyway, I started an AN/I thread on this for those interested.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my fault that the two users who would possibly support the article are blocked or have left the project. I think we should get back to the business of discussing the article, not users. This is no soap box for conspiracy theories. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:NEOLOGISM says, "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." This is one of these cases that calls for a descriptive phrase-title, although I don't think promoting a neologism was article creator's intent; the title is in lowercase, so it seems like a terse try at a descriptive title that unfortunately looks like a neologism. The theory that this article describes is definitely attested to in multiple reliable sources, so the title just needs rejiggering, which happens at the talk page and not AfD. Quigley (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What are the reliable sources in which this theory (under whatever name) is documented? The sources referenced in the article are not presentations of this theory; they are used as pieces of evidence that the article author has assembled to support his thesis. This is not a description of an existing theory, with accounts of different scholars' versions of it. Kanguole 08:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reference verifies the information given in the article. This is true of any reference on any article. This does not appear to be simply a thesis, and I have seen no evidence on this AfD that it is. The sources are reliable, third-party sources that both verify the information in the article and show notability of the article's subject. The only thing this article is arguably failing in is a correct title, but an AfD is not the place for that. - SudoGhost™ 08:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veryifying the information in the article is not enough. Which are the references that show notability of the article's subject? Kanguole 08:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones supposedly fail to show the notability of the subject? Because all of them seem to show the notability of the subject. - SudoGhost™ 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them support pieces of evidence for the theory assembled in the article. None of them show that the theory exists elsewhere. Kanguole 09:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Kanguole. The crucial difference between a theory discussed as such by scholarship and one which is merely assembled by synthesizing loosely related material seems to be lost to many users. It's inclusionist time these days in WP, nearly anything goes. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanguole and Gun Powder Ma are mistaken. They should read the articles cited again.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article seems to meet Wikipedia's policies on notability and other criteria. Articles can be renamed. - SudoGhost™ 05:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we do not delete articles because of a dispute on the wording of the title, & there isn't really any other basis for deletion. . It strikes me as reasonably neutral and descriptive, but if a better one can be found ,nothing here would prevent a modification. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are no major issues with the article content that specifically require deletion as a means of solving the issue; the title can be renamed to a more suitable name, where everyone sees fit. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is not a synthesis. The following articles advance the hypothesis described in the Wikipedia article.
  • [http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/7656 People learn history as the threshold under the Western Great Divergence - "Tianjin Social Science", No. 6 2005.
  • [http://economy.guoxue.com/article.php/17535 The late Ming: the beginning of China's early modernization - "Ming and Qing," No. 5, 2008. --Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Those articles support some of the arguments assembled by the article. That's not the same as establishing notability of this theory. Kanguole 13:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  But the AFD was proposed on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYN, and the two Chinese scholarly articles cited show that neither WP:OR nor WP:SYN applies to this Wikipedia article.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  To write an article about something, in this case a purported theory of economic history, one needs reliable sources that discuss that thing. If instead one takes a collection of sources that one believes are instances of that thing and seeks to extract common themes from them, that is indeed synthesis and original research. Lacking the necessary foundation of a topic recognized in the literature, the result is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Kanguole 09:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I took a course about this specific theory almost 25 years ago at the University of Calgary, so how can this theory be original research or a synthesis? I'm sorry, but this comes across as a particularly nasty form of wikihounding and not at all in the spirit of the encyclopedia. No reason to AFD; no reason to delete. --NellieBly (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Just guessing here, but is it possible that that course dealt with the general question of why China fell behind the West, rather than the specific theory presented in this article? Kanguole 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Doesn't seem to be OR or SYNTH. Heiro 01:38, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable footballer, having played no higher than the fifth tier of English football. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Great name though! GiantSnowman 22:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and there is no evidence of significant coverage. Therefore, he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 10 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. I,m sorry Tara but the consensus here is that there are no reliable sources for this subject and the one (and it's only 1) source you are trying to present is questionable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual of the angel of death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unclear notability/existence. Every Nearly every reference given is a (homemade) Youtube video or wiki site. Google search for "Ritual of the angel of death" book results in five pages, all Wikipedia. Search for "Ritual of the angel of death" Romania is the same. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. No reliable sources seem to be available. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. One of the listed sources is a book. Publisher and copyright year are part of the source note for the book. Many Wikipedia articles don't have a single book among the sources.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The issue is not whether the source is in book form or online form; it just has to be reliable. As for the cited book, the citation in the article says that the information is to be found on page 472, but according to Amazon the book is only 50 pages long. ... discospinster _talk 01:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected that page number. Sorry for confusion.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - (That page number cannot be right either. Only 59 pages in the book.) Youtube is not a reliable source, and the book only cites that "Some observers believe ..." something to be true. That is a little bit shy of 'Notable' and 'Well Sourced' to me. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article contains unsustainable material; WP:FRINGE applies with regard to sourcing and attribution. Citing discussions is not sufficient evidence of reliability. Whiteguru (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book authored by Leilah Wendell in front of me. Have you read it or seen a copy?

Several Wikipedia articles that I have seen use You Tube videos as references and sources. The article on Fred Rogers (children's television personality of the 1960s and 1970s) is one of them.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Wikipedia:Video links & Wikipedia:External_links best sum up my feelings on the 'Youtube as Cite' issue. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this the book you are talking about? ... discospinster _talk 23:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I have an earlier edition of the book printed long before 2005 without the plug for the website that 2005 edition has.Tara grinstead friend (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to G-code and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Until July 9, this was a redirect to G-code. This new article lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to move this article to my user page, but I am not the owner of the "G" programming language, only the initiator of the article, so why would I put it there? I put it here simply for completeness, to add a language that has been omitted and looks interesting. I'd like to cite "Wikipedia does not have firm rules", one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. Drquim (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia does have guidelines that editors follow to develop WP:Consensus in making decisions. You'll find help on how an AfD works at WP:AFDFORMAT. In deciding whether to keep an article, the question is always, are there reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability? On Wikipedia, all of these terms have slightly more technical meanings than you might expect, so it's worth reading the material at WP:GNG. Here, it's not enough that something seems notable, i.e., that people not connected to the subject should take note (because it seems notable), they have to actually do it and they have to do it in reliable independent secondary sources. WP:RS As a practical matter, for a typical software product, that usually means citing a couple magazine articles or mentions in a couple books. Currently, the article doesn't have that and when I Googled, I couldn't find any. Hope this helps (and explains the suggestion you got about moving the article to a page in your user space and continuing working on it as you look for sources.) Msnicki (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or restore the redirect. Despite the comments on User talk:Drquim, I still hope that Drquim is willing to engage in a civil discussion. Just in case: developing an article in user space is a technique I have used until enough reliable sources can be found to justify inclusion. For example, this language could certainly be notable in the future, for example, if a trade press or academic writes an article on it. At that point it would be welcome; I am generally inclusionist, but also prefer quality articles over quantity. W Nowicki (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you are saying is, if the company pays PR Web $300 to have their release appear in other magazines with some journalist's name stuck on them, it's suddenly reputable. Drquim (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Articles that are clearly just paid placements or reprints of a company's press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:CORPDEPTH. To get useful coverage, most small companies will follow simpler guerrilla marketing strategies, e.g., sending free copies to journalists and then following up to see if they can get them interested in writing something. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability, no independent references. (Restoring redirect would also be acceptable.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- No independent references and I think a case can be made that this is WP:Promotion, as the article creator is associated with the business that created the language. I also think the lack of independent and reliable sources make it pretty clear that WP:N is not satisfied. Finally, changing the redirect without any sort of discussion was inappropriate, as WP:N of G-code is well established. For now, the redirect should be restored and the article deleted. Let some enthusiastic user of the G programming language write up a new article once it receives broader and more verifiable coverage. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already stated that I have nothing to do with the company. I just heard about the language and decided to create an article. How that would associate me with the company is beyond me. What proof did you have to offer that I'm somehow a member of the company? Drquim (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one really cares whether you're associated with the company or not (even though, as a new editor, you'll naturally face more skepticism and concern about possible WP:COI, as explained at WP:SPA.) But we do assume you care about your article. So we're trying to explain why the lack of sources is a problem right now and how you might move the article to user space, e.g., to User:Drquim/G (programming language), and then continue working to find sources. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell has time for this. I started an article. Like always, this "community" moves to delete it. I don't have time to sit around trolling, doing extensive source research etc. I got two kids I don't have time to play stupid games with you people. Do the research yourself. Drquim (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete —Ruud 20:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no reason to delete information. Drquim (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Though before the 7 day period, it's pretty clear this AFD falls under the snowball clause in terms of opinions here, and as a result, I don't see an issue with closing it early. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Canton (1857) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article really should be deleted because it's too short to get more information. And it needs a verification by an expert, but there's no expert can help except for me. Spellcast suddenly created it as soon as I told him the Chinese version. He seems to make one only for connection to the Chinese version.

Some readers will try reading on Simple English Wikipedia as simple as they want, of course, some people can not read English or consider reading in English is hard to hit.

So as my honest advise, removing from English wiki is the best choice not only in order to waste our time but also check this unfinished one. The Simple English verison is only enough, nothing can be helpful aside from deletion. 俠刀行 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - From the Simple Englsh and Chinese wiki articles, the battle appears to be notable, with what appears to be significant coverage available in reliable sources - while the current article isn't very good, the solution is improvement, not deletion.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep "no expert can help except for me" seems to be an absurd reason to delete. For one thing, it is clearly false as a quick search soon turns up a detailed English-language source: The Bombardment of Canton. Warden (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'll try to knock out a translation from the Chinese page tomorrow. It's probably best if I do most of the writing as 俠刀行 is clearly not a native English speaker.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that won't be necessary. The Chinese wiki uses Chinese sources, but per WP:NOENG, English language sources are preferred over non-English ones unless there's no English sources of equal quality. Spellcast (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. I merely created this stub when 俠刀行 showed me the Chinese version. There's nothing wrong with a stub. Just because the Chinese version is longer than this one, it doesn't mean this has to be deleted. There's no deadline. I have no doubt this will expand over time. Also, I've removed the unnecessary article tags. ((Expand Chinese)) isn't needed because English language sources are preferred over non-English ones. And ((Expert-verify)) isn't needed because it's sourced and no-ones doubting its authenticity. Spellcast (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A historic battle is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Size is not relevant. Dream Focus 09:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like a pie in the sky.--俠刀行 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er. Try Googling a little before !voting, eh? Fences&Windows 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- articles on real battles are generally considered appropriate for this encyclopedia. The article is short, but that in itself is no reason to delete it. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm afraid I cannot fathom the nominator's reasons for nomination, which almost appear to be sour grapes that he didn't create it. Perfectly acceptable subject for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, U didn't hit the truth.--俠刀行 (talk) 09:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Second Opium War unless/until (verifiable) information on this battle can be found beyond its bare WP:ITEXISTS existence. An article should describe its topic, not merely assert its existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL. ((sofixit)). A little effort would be nice. Fences&Windows 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Competence is required, and the Opium wars are well outside my area of expertise. Changing !vote to unqualified keep as sufficient cited information has been added to merit unredirected continued existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am unable to find the reason why nominator wanted to delete. "there's no expert can help except for me"?--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The battle is notable, and the nominator does not provide any clear reason for deletion. If it is too short, then improvement is the answer, not deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. I actually added some sources, how about that! Sheesh, don't just !vote to keep - that rescue tag is there for a reason, i.e. to encourage edits to improve the article. Would anyone care to improve on my start on this stub? There's plenty more to write about, I'm sure there's a featured article in it for someone who cares enough. Fences&Windows 20:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, no people care. Because no need this article was created randomly by a man (Sorry, but must say). He was not prepared, he was not ready, as I saw his first edit: 1791 bytes.--俠刀行 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources presented here and in the article shows it passes WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Obvious keep. The person who has nominated it for AfD has no logical reason to do so. The article is a part of Opium Wars and has been categorized as such.Jethwarp (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The concerns raised by the nominator have been addressed through normal editing of the article, to the effect that notability is now demonstrated. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable concept (I've been unable to find any significant coverage after searching several sources; most instances of the phrase seem to refer to courtesy when speaking on telephones rather than to this specific subject), and the article is really clutching at straws for things to say: "Courtesy telephones generally have a distinctive colour..." ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Added two references. As the nominator noted there are not many books or news atories with lengthy discussion, because it seems pretty well known in modern society. It shows up as a dramatic device in fiction orders of magnitude more often (per Google Book search) than one finds explanations of how it works or its history. Edison (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is similar to emergency telephone which doesn't have much in the way of sources either. Toll-free telephone number isn't much better. But the worst case for these various telephony articles is that we merge them into telephone because turning commonplace topics like this into redlinks would be counter-productive - editors would soon recreate them. Myself, I'm curious to know why courtesy phones always seem to be white - where did that come from? Warden (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We could all have done without the other shit exists argument really... ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 20:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We could have done without this discussion altogether. Please see our deletion policy which states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Warden (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Colonel Warden, unwarranted nomination, notable topic in its small way, enhances encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - much improved since nomination and has been demonstrated to be notable. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:21, 17 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttiyani St George Orthodox Church, Ranny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This church appears to fail to meet WP:ORG due to a lack of any reliable, independent coverage. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - article lacks substance and fails WP:ORG Whiteguru (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of good coverage. All I saw on Google and Yahoo were links affiliated with the church and a Facebook page for them...not my idea of notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a recreation. the wub "?!" 19:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This does not seem like a notable topic at all. It is purely original research. JDDJS (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted: carbon copy of a previous version; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran miracle. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 9 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  08:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I came across this page on NPP and cannot find any reliable, 3rd-party sources for it, so I am nominating it for deletion as it fails the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreferenced, no reliable sources, created by an SPA so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 9 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Removed PROD - unsourced personal essay that violates WP:OR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR and WP:SYNTH problems as well. MarnetteD | Talk 19:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a frightening view of where this might lead see "You Have 0 Friends"MarnetteD | Talk 21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and MarnetteD. —  Abhishek  ^Talk 19:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in current form — while the term exists (also as FSS/Facebook status syndorme), it hasn't been officially classified as a medical condition. It might be one day, though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as the creator deleted a speedy template and this article deserves it— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondegroovily (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 July 2011

  If they hadn't, I would have declined it anyway, as the article is not a blatant hoax and so CSD:G3 was not appropriate - and I don't see any valid CSD criteria -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

• Delete - per WP:OR jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW delete, neologism, unsalvageable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO - see recent news articles - and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 12 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASCO: the Supermarket Musical! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOTE Breawycker (talk to me!) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not a neologism, rather it's a play that hasn't yet opened. It's not notable because it hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. Not yet. Cullen328 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I meant WP:NOTE.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now, no prejudice towards re-creation if it gets some coverage in the future. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appearing at the Edinburgh Fringe is not a claim to notability - it's open to anyone who wishes to take part (which is the way it should be). If it gets substantial reviews or other coverage in third-party publications (preferably in publications other that those that exist to review every single Fringe entry) it can have an article based on that. But Wikipedia is not there to provide you publicity ahead of your Fringe debut. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:19, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The player has not attained the level of notability for WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created once he meets it or GNG. Patken4 (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Can be recreated once he meets it or GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being drafted by an NHL team should imply notability. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ice hockey Ordoinc (talk) Ordoinc (talk) 07:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No. Only first-rounders are likely to have notability. Lower-rounders are much less likely (like 5% chance) to achieve notability. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't go around making up ridiculous statistics. A recent study has found that 19% of drafted players go on to play over 200 NHL games.[5] For a player to play in just a single NHL game, or to otherwise meet one of the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY, is much higher. One need to only look at the evidence from past drafts (for example, the 2005 NHL Entry Draft where only 42 red lines remain from 230 drafted players, so 82% have achieved notability). Dolovis (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You realize the page you link to basically supports what Alaney2k said right? That the lower the round the less chance of making it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment was in reply to alaney2k's made-up statistic of 5%. I made no comment towards the crystal ball concerns that this article raises. Dolovis (talk) 20:48, 15 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. OlavN's opinion is not taken into account as it does not address the problems identified with this article in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.  Sandstein  09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable. The only review on the article [6] is very flimsy, and a search turned up press releases and forum/blog posts alone - frankie (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP would be a useless software selection guide if a (clearly powerful) program like this were removed. OlavN (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP is not a software selection guide, it is an encyclopedia. The matter is not whether the program is useful or powerful, but whether it is notable - frankie (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: article has multiple verifiable sources at the bottom which discuss the software. 137.122.32.18 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the links on the article, #1 and #2 are actually the same, but I guess that #1 was supposed to be this, which is a listing for a 90 minutes seminar by NVIDIA about this software. #2 simply lists it at the Khronos website as a utility for OpenCL and gives a link to the developer's site. #3 is a video stream; it didn't work for me but given the title I'll assume that it is a recording of the seminar from #1. Finally, #4 is an actual review, although not very thorough - frankie (talk) 22:10, 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, Tone 17:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This guideline covers companies and their products. It requires products to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The sources provided so far appear to be internal company generated sources, or press releases or similar. There are only 350 hits on Google for "OpenCL Studio". That is a very small number. This appears to be a young product ... perhaps in a few years it will have enough secondary sources to deserve its own article. On a related note: the parent company, Geist3D has a WP article (which also has a "dubious notability" tag). The material in this OpenCL article, if deleted, can and should be moved into the Geist3D article. --Noleander (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if text from is article is copied to another article then the article cannot be deleted as the edit history which is the attribution under the Creative Commons license will need to be preserved. Edgepedia (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence it passes WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:42, 17 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Brent (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article was deproded by an anon IP account. Yet the original reason of not being able to find reliable sources to establish notability has not been addressed. My google and bing searches have not turned up anything to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think his work as his publisher - director of Yale Uni Press - production of the Annals of Communism series (National Review: John J. Miller wrote a profile of Brent and the Annals of Communism series arguing It is perhaps not too much to say that Brent’s Annals of Communism series, which was launched more than a decade ago, is one of the most important publishing projects in the world. [7]) and Executive Directorship of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research all would seem sufficient to establish notability.I am not sure if publisher would be better than author in the parentheses in the title (Msrasnw (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)) PS He is also the visiting Alger Hiss Professor of History and Literature at Bard College. (A named chair (but only a visiting one at a small college))(Msrasnw (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His work, both as an editor and as an author, has been extensively covered in mainstream news-media. E.g. see reviews in New York Times[8],[9],[10], Chicago Tribune[11], [12], Chronicle of Higher Education[13], NPR[14] and other newspapers (e.g. [15],[16],[17],[18],). Quite a few of these provide specific coverage of him personally, e.g. the National Review, [19] (the article is called "The annals of Jonathan Brent: one man and a great publishing project"), an article specifically about him in The Jewish Week[20], etc. I think there is enough here to pass WP:BIO (particularly WP:AUTHOR) and WP:PROF#C7, and, if nothing else, WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn - Thank you both for turning up additional sources. I'm not clear why Google didn't (and still doesn't) turn those up when I search on his name. Is the geolocation sorting on google somehow messing things up? For future reference, could you tell me what keywords you used on the google search so I can see if it also produces such findings? Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Mask (film). Narrow consensus is to delete, but several advocate a merger, and a redirect is at any rate useful. Relevant and sourced material, if any, can be merged from the history to the extent editorial consensus allows.  Sandstein  08:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niko (The Mask)

The only appearance of this character is in The Mask (film). This article is basically a plot summary of that movie, written from the subject's perspective. The non-fiction info is unsourced. theFace 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The character is notable, being described in sources such as The Supervillain Book. How we divide this material amongst our Mask-related articles is not a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books search gives 7 results, but provides no page scans, so I can't tell what they say. A news search gives 8 articles, but none of them are actually about Dorian Tyrell. They are about The Mask (film), summarizing its plot and stating Tyrell's name along the way. I suspect that the books found by Google mention Tyrell in the same incidental fashion. Cheers, theFace 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect not enough notability outside of the movie. Article is mainly WP:PLOT with no sources about the character's real world significance. The only sources that mention this character just give a plot synopsis with no coverage "directly in detail" about the character (see WP:GNG). See also writing about fiction. Nothing significant to say here that isn't already covered in the main plot in the main article. Gillicutties (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as no reliable secondary source addresses the character describing his reception and impact. All that shows up with a quick search engine test are tertiary sources or unreliable sources, but no single source that addresses the character in detail giving analytic or evaluative claims. Without this, there is nothing to presume that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work, material unsuitable for Wikipedia. References used in the article aren't even for the fictional character but for the movie The Mask. As the fictional character has no notability outside of the plot of the movie, I believe that the article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant info to The Mask and then Redirect I have contributed quite a bit to this article in the past but I have unable to garner any further secondary sources and it seems no one else has either. Any information of value that can be used for The Mask article then hopefully that can be done and both Niko and Dorian Tyrell articles should be redirected to The Mask. --Auger Martel (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! :-) I've got a question: years ago, during this major overhaul, you inserted a paragraph about an early draft of one episode of the Mask cartoon. Do you happen to remember where you got that information from? I have merged the section into The Mask: The Animated Series#Overview. If this articles passes the AfD, I will revert that if you want to. Dorian Tyrell also contains stuff (again unsourced) about an alternative ending of the 1994 movie. I could merge that into The Mask (film), but I'm not sure how, as the article has no Production section. Cheers, theFace 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Actually, that section was originally inserted by the user Jienum on the Niko article. I believe the original edit for that is here. I added it to the Dorian Tyrell article and attempted to find a reliable source and my particular edit by myself was re-inserting information that had been removed for no reason. That section is one which I have been unable to find any information at all. I have drifted away from both articles for a while now, so unless someone can unearth some reference for that, or if Jienum can clarify, it probably should be removed altogether. Sorry for any trouble. Cheers --Auger Martel (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I did inform User:Jienum about this pair of AfDs, so let's hope they respond. - theFace 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:The Mask (film)#Alternative ending. - theFace 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough reliable coverage to WP:verify notability. Some sources verify that this character exists. But you need to do more than name a phenomenon to justify a Wikipedia article. Mainly WP:PLOT, which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 13 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. Not redirecting as the title is not a likely search term and there is no sourced content that could be merged. An appropriate redirect can be created editorially.  Sandstein  08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niko (The Mask) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian Tyrell (3nd nomination). This article was previously co-nominated with Dorian Tyrell back in 2006.

While I must say this is an interesting persona, being an appliance of the unscrupulous mafia boss stereotype often used in popular culture, the majority of this article is in-universe cruft and unsourced info. The character's only appearance was in The Mask (film). Any informational value can be put at that page, or at The Mask: The Animated Series. theFace 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect no notability outside of the movie. Article is mainly WP:PLOT with no sources about the character's real world significance. See also writing about fiction. Nothing significant to say here that isn't already covered in the main plot in the main article. Gillicutties (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article bout him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article barely provides a reference which is actually for the film The Mask. A quick search engine test shows nothing to presume that the character has relevance beyond the plot of the film. Jfgslo (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any relevant info to The Mask and then Redirect I have contributed quite a bit to this article in the past but I have unable to garner any further secondary sources and it seems no one else has either. Any information of value that can be used for The Mask article then hopefully that can be done and both Niko and Dorian Tyrell articles should be redirected to The Mask. --Auger Martel (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! :-) I've got a question: years ago, during this major overhaul, you inserted a paragraph about an early draft of one episode of the Mask cartoon. Do you happen to remember where you got that information from? I have merged the section into The Mask: The Animated Series#Overview. If this articles passes the AfD, I will revert that if you want to. Dorian Tyrell also contains stuff (again unsourced) about an alternative ending of the 1994 movie. I could merge that into The Mask (film), but I'm not sure how, as the article has no Production section. Cheers, theFace 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Actually, that section was originally inserted by the user Jienum on the Niko article. I believe the original edit for that is here. I added it to the Dorian Tyrell article and attempted to find a reliable source and my particular edit by myself was re-inserting information that had been removed for no reason. That section is one which I have been unable to find any information at all. I have drifted away from both articles for a while now, so unless someone can unearth some reference for that, or if Jienum can clarify, it probably should be removed altogether. Sorry for any trouble. Cheers --Auger Martel (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I did inform User:Jienum about this pair of AfDs, so let's hope they respond. - theFace 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:The Mask (film)#Alternative ending. - theFace 18:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is mainly a plot summary, and Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT plot summaries. Also lacking in sufficient coverage in independent and reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:42, 13 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Contractors Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Disputed PROD. Cannot find any reliable sources that demonstrates this company meets WP:CORP. More specifically, there are no sources that this company "is considered one of the largest roofing contractors of the nation". Singularity42 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another Contracting Company Specialized in Roof Repair and Roof Replacement advertising on Wikipedia. You keep that up, you're gonna wear out that shift key. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia advertising guidelines. When I searched Yahoo and Google, I didn't see any news coverage except for a job listing on BusinessWeek. Perhaps the article can come back when it meets guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 15 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Delafonte Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this singer-songwriter. joe decker^{talk to me} 15:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No references to him or his band, The Deevs. Possibly a WP:HOAX? Pburka (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 13:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 07:52, 16 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  09:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Warriors 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

a non notable sporting event. the article is merely a results listing. I could find no reliable third party coverage. google only shows fighting sources. also nominating for same reason:

• Cage Warriors 8

LibStar (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with nom--just routine sports results. Astudent0 (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brockville Police Service. Any sourced and relevant content can be merged from the history.  Sandstein  09:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Gardiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Police chiefs are not inherently notable. Unable to locate verifiable sources to establish notability. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Brockville Police Service. I agree with the nom that the subject is not independently notable, however, I think the history sections of police department pages should make note of their chiefs. Location (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Police chief of a small town is not an inherently notable position. Pburka (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Police chiefs of large forces are inherently notable, but Brockville is much too small to fall into this category. To put it into perspective, I live in a similar-sized town in England and the police station there is commanded by a sergeant! Nobody is likely to consider him notable enough for an article. Just because American and Canadian cities have independent police departments does not automatically make their chiefs notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per others. Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - its a matter of opinion I guess. but i feel like this person has reached the needed notability to be included in the wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion by User:Fastily under criteria G3. Marasmusine (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Sports: Ski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No online sources, not even Nintendo themselves, cover this game. Therefore, this game does not exist, meaning that this article is merely a joke article. -- ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that the "official" logo used on the article is licensed under Creative Commons and the source of the image is "Own work."--ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not seem to exist. No sources given. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:41, 9 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) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as unreferenced. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The only mention of such a game comes from two years ago [21], which is probably not even the same game. Otherwise, complete lack of verifiability. –MuZemike 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no chance this is the same game. A jet ski is a type of watercraft and the fact that WaveRace 64 was mentioned makes it clear that the game mentioned in the citation was a racing game on water. The game the article mentions in set on a large mountain and all involve snow related activities such as skiing and snowboarding.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a "similar images" Google search on the "official logo" returns nothing. The author has not responded to Thomas's challenge for sources, except to revert without comment. A search using the katagana only returns related games such as We Ski and Resort. This is a work of fiction. Marasmusine (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Suggest changing to Speedy delete as blatant hoax. - X201 (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your suggestion and changed the template to Speedy Delete. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 11:50, 12 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  08:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange-breasted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Orange-breasted is a part heading Snowman (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close, no valid reason for deletion stated. This is a disambig page and seems to be working fine. meshach (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You probably would not say that, if you were aware of the guideline WP:PTM. Please read this guideline and reconsider. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Delete per nom and WP:PTM. Thanks to Snowmanradio for his civil note! meshach (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, you could argue that this is a special case or that the WP:PTM guideline should be removed. Snowman (talk)

• Delete for the reason stated: partial title match list WP:PTM. Not a disambiguation page since there is no ambiguous title. Deleting the page will allow the reader to get to the search results directly. See also:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-backed
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkest
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forstal (disambiguation)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue-necked
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good looking (no consensus)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retain (disambiguation) (no consensus)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as painted
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurking
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new"
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On wheels
  • User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 7#In space and In space
  • User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 2#Breaking and List of phrases including breaking

-- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agree with nom. search-clutter. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:14, 11 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  09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Beach Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Utterly non-notable local 4 July parade. Speedy was declined. PROD notice was removed twice without explanation. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I proposed deletion before, no evidence of notability. Added by an enthusiastic editor, but not notable, sorry Superp (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No sign of WP:GNG. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:35, 12 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  08:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominated at MFD (wrong forum), listing here instead.

Reason given was: "Not notable, only song from the film with a page, very little content." Original nomination made by Bollyjeff (talk · contribs). Acather96 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fails notability per WP:NSONGS. A search turned up only sites that attests that it exist and nothing of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 10:25, 13 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 already deleted (non-admin closure). Some Wiki Editor (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article fails to address WP:BIO. After massive trimming of fake links, forum posts and promotional chaff text, I find only one credible citation and that is to an obit in the Daily Star which does not appear to demonstrate suitable significant impact to address WP:GNG. Fæ (talk) 10:05, 9 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Requested by 72.244.204.221 on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#FC Chalon —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page:

This article was PRODed in May 2011, with "Stand-alone Notability outside of its league not established, i.e. it fails WP:GNG" as its reason. The PROD was contested because "level 5 of a major league system seems, on the face of it, high enough for notability but by all means try an AFD". The article is a two-sentence stub created in 2006 and minimally improved since then. A check of finds a stub with a single reference (http://www.footballenfrance.fr/clubs/liste/chalon.php) that would be of use if notability is established, but nothing that meets GNG. Since an internet search does results in hits, there may be notability buried somewhere out there, but I couldn't find it. As an organization, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and is not notable beyond perhaps a mention on the poorly-maintained List of football clubs in France. 72.244.204.221 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - According to the French Wiki page it has competed in the Coupe de France (the French National cup competion) - which would meet WP:FOOTYN. Of course - this needs sourcing, but if true should be able to be confirmed.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve, as per Nigel Ish. This meets the criteria for football clubs. One note, the fact that teh article was created 5 years ago and not improved since should have no bearing on whether it should be kept.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just needs some sources and improvement, However if no proof of them competing in the coupe de france is found then deletion should be the case. Seasider91 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the club has reached the Round of 32 in the 2000-01 Coupe de France and again in 2001-02. In any case there are eight groups of clubs at the level that this team plays. Better to establish a notbility level for French clubs rather than picking odd ones off. TerriersFan (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the participation of the Club in the last 32 of the 2000-01 and 2001-02 Coupe de France is officially confirmed here and here so we can put this AfD quietly to bed. TerriersFan (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has played at a high enough level to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 16:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Played at a high enough level and has reached the later rounds of a major cup competition. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Nominate that the this nomination be immediately closed as per Terriersfan. The article clearly meets WP:FOOTYN and there are sources documenting that. The 'keep' opinion here is unanimous. Close the conversation per WP:SNOW. I'd do it myself but I've already commented.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:00, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology in the DC animated universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Almost entirely unsourced, WP:OR, and cruft. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per the precident of the Star Wars chronology AfD and WP:WAF. Articles about fiction should use real life as their primary frame of reference, including plot summary is part of this but such exhaustive treatment of in-universe information is better suited to a fan wikia than Wikipedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - after transwikifying to DC Animated Universe Wiki (if it does not already exist there, though it probably does). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The content of the article is original research and original research by synthesis. The topic itself does not exist in reliable third-party sources. There is only one reference in the article that is unrelated to the chonology itself. The topic does not meet the general notability guideline and it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no third-party sources to WP:verify notability, and this is mainly a WP:PLOT synopsis which is what Wikpiedia articles are WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:40, 13 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  09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corero Network Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD, with the reasoning that I see tons of non-primary sources all over Google news. However, I found 8 for "Corero Network Security" and 4 for "Top Layer Security" - all of which appear to be either press releases or standard, general announcements. I could find no evidence that this company meets the notability criteria for businesses or the general notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another provider of intrusion prevention systems advertising on Wikipedia. No real claim is made that this business has had a significant effect on history, technology, or culture, despite the presence of an elaborate unreferenced and unreferenceable company history that suggests this was written by an insider. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A contributor (probably with a COI but that's a guess on my part) has provided a list of references at User talk:Andrewa#Name Change Follow Up, but they're probably all just the company's press releases. I could be wrong. Seventy employees providing a software product is borderline at best, they'd need to have done something really newsworthy and there's no evidence of that so far. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree with the CoI suspicion - unless it's pure coincidence that Corero "appointed Aimee Rhodes as Chief Marketing Officer of its US-based security division" in May this year! Some citations have been added by another editor to the article, which I have analysed at Talk:Corero Network Security#Citation problem addressed; more edits forthcoming. The editor Vcruz911 would appear to be Victor Cruz, Principal MediaPR.net, Hudson, MA who seems to be the Press & Media Contact for the company (see for example Free Press Release) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I have been informed that Corero do not employ Victor (and the press releases on their website are indeed from another PR firm), however I am confused as the linked-to article at Free Press Release was dated yesterday, and clearly is from Victor, and it ends with naming him as a press and media contact. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:09, 15 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. Had to think over a decent rationale for this one. While some have mentioned that other articles such as Herbert F. Christian are similar to this one, the fact that other articles exist really isn't a valid reason for an article to automatically be kept. That said, some of the articles that exist but received lesser awards is something I've taken into account. The fact that the award received isn't as notable as some that exist now is not overly relevant, this person was not around when these new awards have existed, so this does not apply. If they were awarded something that at the time was a high award, then that's what's relevant. This seems to be the case here, and he has received reasonable coverage in at least one of the sources presented. The article in itself is a perm-stub, and it might be best to summarise the information in the article into one paragraph, and merge it to another article. That's what I'd do. But that's a discussion for the article talk page. There's no consensus here for deletion, so I'm closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Individual who does not meet the general notability guidelines. The only claim of significance is that he died in a brave and honourable way - unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, no matter how brave an individual is. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't find a lot on him yet - the only really good material I've turned up so far is in Cross of Honour, (ISBN 0958317321), but I don't have access to it. Nevertheless, I'm curious as to the significance of the Honoris Crux - from our article on it, it appears it might be significant enough to get past WP:BIO, if it is (as described) the South African equivalent of the Victoria Cross. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed the award, but although the Honoris Crux was the highest military decoration awarded in peacetime, the article on the Crux states that the 2nd Type decoration which Winterbottom was awarded was the lowest of the four classes of the Honoris Crux Decoration - so I'm not sure that the Victoria Cross equivalence is there (if he had received the Honoris Crux Diamond (never actually awarded) or perhaps the Honoris Crux Gold (6 recipients, none of whom currently have articles here), that would appear to be a closer match to the Victoria Cross). I note that none of the Honoris Crux Silver recipients (27 of them) or the 64 listed recipients (of 201 awarded) of the Honoris Crux have articles - that would seem to imply that the receipt of one of the 4 levels if the Crux is not in and of itself sufficient to meet the notabiluy criteria (although I am aware of the fact that the existance or otherwise of other articles is not an indication of whether this article should exist, it is interesting to note that none of the 31 people who received the higher classes have articles, nor do any of the other 200 recipients of the same class). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In the case of the higher classes, I'm inclined just to knock that off as a side effect of it being a South African award, as those topics haven't received as much attention. But I'm very open to opinions on the 2nd Type - its not my field, and there only being one decent source on Winterbottom so far is a bit of a concern. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Honoris Crux Silver was the highest possible bravery award in a non-combat situation. Whether that means it is not equal in "rank" to a Victoria Cross or Medal Of Honor I don't know. The fact that none of the other HC recipients have articles yet is simply due to the tiny number of participants in WikiProject South Africa and even fewer SA Milhist participants. There is a massive backlog of South Africa related articles to be created. Roger (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, he was awarded the "basic" Honoris Crux not the Silver. Roger (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction. Winterbottom was awarded the Honoris Crux Type 2. It was then the highest available medal for peacetime bravery.

Correct myself. Upon further reading it seems that indeed the HC up to 1975 was not the same from 1976. Still confusing. Markusrow (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I cannot verify this and by way of background but not directly material to the discussion, I suggest that the likely reason for the discontinuation of the Honoris Crux medals, was as a result of a new beginning for South Africa, at all levels in the 1990's. During this period South African National sporting teams adopted new colors, names, and I imagine that similarly over time the entire range of medals and awards were changed to a new one being adopted as a symbolic political gesture of renewal. Again it would seem unlikely that previous awards were withdrawn. National colors / caps in the sporting world were not retroactively reversed or annulled.

Mark  15:024, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that all the HC winners should have pages/articles of their own. Rather than deleting this one, we should add the others. It also seems to me that, excluding the performance on the bombing raid, the reason for issuing the VC to Edwin_Swales is the same as the issuing of the Honoris Crux to Kevin Winterbottom. BoonDock (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems substantially similar to the MOH or VC. Rmhermen (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the "crux" of the matter, pardon the pun! If it is equivalent to the VC or the MOH, then he'd be a shoe-in. However, whilst the Victoria Cross is the highest military decoration in the UK and the Commonwealth, and the Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration in the US, the Honoris Crux (2nd type) is not. According to South African military decorations, the order of decoration at that time were: Castle of Good Hope Decoration, Honoris Crux Diamond, Honoris Crux Gold, Order of the Star of South Africa, Honoris Crux Silver, and then Honoris Crux — 2nd Type. This means that it was the 6th highest award available in 1976 when Winterbottom died and was awarded the Crux. It's current equivalent (the Nkwe ya Boronse) is the 3rd highest award available - again, I would argue that this is not equivalent to the VC or the MoH. Incidentally, from what I have read, if Winterbottom had died a few years later, then he would not have been eligible for the Crux, as it was later only awarded for combat conditions. Also, although the Crux may have been the highest award in peacetime, both the MoH and the VC are indisputably the highest awards in their countries, outranking all other awards whether war-time or peace-time. The Crux does not outrank the military awards mentioned above, and so it would not be the equivalent - to be honest, if he had won the Gold award (no Diamond awards having been given), I'd be more inclined to accept it as the equivalent of the VC/MoH, but as it is 3 orders below even that one, I cannot see how it can be the equivalent. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1. At least as notable as the following similar articles Uładzimir Karvat, Albert Hickman (pilot), Beverley Randolph (aviator)
2. Possible more notable than Kim Campbell (pilot) since Winterbottom died in the crash.
3. All Honoris Crux recipients are probably notable enough to warrant articles of their own.
4. A lack of online information does not always indicate a lack of notability. South Africa was significantly isolated during the '70s and a lot of information was not published internationally. More information on Winterbottom can probably be found with a visit to one of the branches of the South African Air Force Museum.

--NJR_ZA (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Karvat received the highest award possible - no other awards rank higher than that, either military or civilian - as such he clearly meets the criteria for inclusion. Hickman, Randolph and Campball should not (from my reading of the notability criteria) have articles on Wikipedia - they have not been awarded the highest award, and I do not see that they meet the criteria for military personnel otherwise.
2. I'd agree that holders of the Gold Crux would meet the notability criteria automatically - however, the award that Winterbottom received was 3 levels below that award
3. I never mentioned that this was nominated for lack on online sources - if there is significant coverage (i.e. more than a short paragraph) in multiple reliable off-line sources, then I'd agree that he meets the criteria for inclusion. I cannot physically search for such sources as I am nowhere near South Africa, but just saying "there must be some sources" is not sufficient to justify keeping an article. Of course, if someone in SA can find some significant coverage in reliable independent sources and cite them, that'd mean that he meets the criteria for notability, in which case I'd happily withdraw my nomination for deletion

I have no issue with this particular article - I admire what Winterbottom did, on a personal level - but if he does not meet the notability criteria, then he should not have an article on Wikipedia. As I have already said, I do not believe that the 2nd type of the Crux (as the 6th highest award in SA at the time) is equivalent to the VC or the MoH (both of which are the highest awards for their respective jurisdictions), and so in and of itself, being awarded that is not sufficient to meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NJR_ZA and add to the list that finding current online official sources would be extremely difficult because the significance of anything that happened in SA before 1994 (except for events involving "the struggle") is downplayed by the current powers that be. They find it difficult to acknowlege that anyone connected to the "evil apartheid regime" could ever have done anything good or decent. The current controversy about veterans affairs legislation is evidence of this official bias. Roger (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does now meet the general notability guidelines with the recent addition of proper citations. AIUI the "highest medal" notability rule is only meant to "save" articles that don't otherwise meet the GNG. Thus this discussion is now moot. Roger (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect, I disagree! I don't see the significant coverage at multiple, reliable, independent sources. Let's look at the sources:

1. SA Roll of Honour - Person Information
   • I can find no evidence that this meets the reliable source criteria. People submit information to this person's own website, and the owner updates the database they keep accordingly. The "Information" box does not explain who the owner of the website is, or what checking they do of the information submitted by people. There is also the fact that the main page here states There are some very definite errors in the database. This comes about because there are errors in some of the details that were supplied to me by the SANDF, as well as the possibility of typing/OCR errors during the process of capturing the data. If you spot something that you KNOW is wrong, then PLEASE contact me so that I can update the database. - another indication that it can't be considered a completely reliable source.
2. Google Books: Borderstrike!: South Africa into Angola 1975-1980 By Willem Steenkamp page 284
   • The full extent of the entry reads Serial: 25; Number: 70388129PE; Rank & Name: Second-Lieut. K. R. Winterbottom (P); Unit: 4 Squadron SAAF - hardly the 'significant coverage' required by the notability criteria
3. "KEVIN ROY WINTERBOTTOM". South Africa War Graves Project.
   • Firstly, as this does not appear to be an official Government-sanctioned project, I'm not sure how 'reliable' it would be. The coverage is basically the same as the Roll of Honour (in fact the details appear to be word-for-word the same, so I assume that's from the Crux citation text) and details of his serial number, rank, etc. Again, not "signficant" coverage
4. Du Toit, Graham C.L. (2005). Roll of Honour - South African Air Force. South African Air Force Association. p. 100
   • Total entry: Winterbottom K.R. (HC) 2/Lt 09/06/76 - not the significant coverage required.
5. Uys, Ian (1993). Cross of honour. Uys Publishers. p. 45. ISBN 0958317321.
   • Without knowing the extent of the coverage in this book, it's hard to know whether this is significant coverage or not! Google Books shows only 1 page with mention of a "Winterbottom" (here, where he is listed as a recipient of the HC - that shows no further detail; an older edition (here would appear to indicate that the HC citation is printed there (presumably this is where the Roll of Honour and the SAWGP sites got the information). This would appear to be the best source (from which all the other sources obtained their information), and I'd agree that this would meet the requirements as a reliable independent source.

In summary, apart from that last source, the others either have little information (and certainly not significant coverage), or are just quoting the citation of the award (which the book gives) - and so are in effect one source.

As such, I do not consider this discussion to be moot, as the GNG has not (from what I can see) been met. Have there been any books written which include (for example) a chapter about Winterbottom, which don't just print out the citation text? If so, that'd help - but if all the sources are using the same text, there is not the multiple sourcing which GNG requires PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add for clarity, that although the Cross of Honour book appears to have significant coverage (snippets are shown from pages 43 and 45, I assume that page 44 also discusses Winterbottom), in itself it is insufficient to meet the criteria - GNG says multiple sources - and as I said, the other sources appear to use the text from this book, and so in effect are one source. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomsteve, according to Mark's comment above several of the awards you mention as outranking this did not exist at the time. Is this not correct? We can't judge "topness" using the awards available at this time when he was awarded at that time. Rmhermen (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were indeed two varieties of HC. From 1952-1975 there was just one type (which was the 5th highest award at the time). South Africa changed their awards system in 1975 (i.e. the year before Winterbottom's death and award), changing the HC from 1 class to 4 classes (Diamond, Gold, Silver and "Type 2" - the latter being the one which Winterbottom was awarded). There was a big shake-up in the awards system in 1975, however the highest award since 1952 was still the Castle of Good Hope Decoration. The other award I mentioned way up above was the Order of the Star of South Africa which was instituted in 1975. This means that in 1976 when Winterbottom died, the Honoris Crux 2nd type was the 6th highest award available (albeit the highest non-combat award) and so not a comparison to the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor which are both the highest award available (whether in wartime or not). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must correct a misinterpretation here. The Diamond, Gold, Silver and "plain" HCs were collectively the "Second type", which all replaced the "first type" which consisted of only a single medal. "Second type" does not mean second in rank it means second chronologically. (The Medal of Honor also went through a sequence of different designs and "types" and even the awarding criteria were changed throughout its history.) It is also incorrect to include the Order of the Star of South Africa in this particlur lineup as that was a Service award, not a Valour decoration. As for the Castle of Good Hope Decoration, even though it was explicitly a replacement for the VC when South Africans were no longer eligibe for that award, IMHO it should be considered to be "vapourware". It was never awarded thus the HC was the de-facto highest award for valour. It almost seems like it would have taken an act akin to single-handedly defeating the entire Klingon Empire to even be considered for a CGH. Roger (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Circumstances plus award equals notability to me, but may not be appropriately positioned within the encyclopedia. Also helps roll back a little our systemic bias. If this article is deleted, material should be added to South African Air Force or History of the South African Air Force. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the "systemic bias". This is the first attempt at an article about a recipient of any grade or type of HC. Until now the Anglo-American (not the mining company) "hegemony" on WP has had this field almost entirely to itself. I think we should also try to broaden this discussion and not try to hang this entire debate only on the status of the medal by taking a serious look at WP:BIO1E and more specifically the first point of WP:ANYBIO wich directly contradicts the idea that only the highest possible medal counts. There are similar articles about US pilots who didn't even get a medal for their "notability conferring single incidents" or they were lower ranking medals. Roger (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the award. As I read it, this was the highest possible award awarded by the Republic, and thus we should treat Winterbottom like we treat people such as Herbert F. Christian, who seems to have been a thoroughly average person aside from the circumstances of his death and the posthumous decoration he was granted. I don't see the substantial difference between these two men. Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 11 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. I'm sorry Mattwilcoxen but the consensus is that he's not notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Myers (Theologian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A theologian. His PhD dissertation was published into a book in 2006. Is currently a lecturer at a university. Has another book being published later this year. Has published journal articles. Claims to be a popular blogger. Nothing comes up in searches except on other blogs. His university bio page has more about him. I think this is a case of too soon. Note for searches: He goes by Benjamin and Ben. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agreed - probably too soon. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See comments on the discussion page. Myers is a very notable figure within his field of study, and since that is the criteria, the article should be upheld. His book on Milton has been frequently cited in newer research on Milton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattwilcoxen (talk • contribs) 05:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — Mattwilcoxen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. 14 cites on GS. Small even for theology. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Delete created by single purpose editor. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC) (From single purpose editor: my niche interest in theology does not automatically preclude inclusion of the article under debate.)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Security Testing Methodology Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm not sure wether this is an ad or the manual itself but it is ridiculously spammy and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps if the book itself is willing to be open-sourced, it could be moved to WikiBooks? The author Pete Herzog also looks like a living person bio that should also go, with no independent reliable sources. W Nowicki (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable independent sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Certainly, lots of Google hits, but nothing I could find that could be used as a source for notability. This article appears to be WP:PROMOTION. I agree with W Nowicki that the associated Pete Herzog should also be deleted, also for lack of sources to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 18:47, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable; Apparently self-published book; Various attempts to add the book into Wikipedia Wxidea (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book, Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne, has the following reference at Library and Archives Canada:

 AMICUS No. 39134670
                                  Serial
      NLC COPIES: NLC Electronic - 
        TITLE(S): Annuaire de la noblesse moderne des maisons principales 
                   de l'Europe (En ligne)
                 *Annuaire de la noblesse moderne des maisons principales 
                   de l'Europe [ressource électronique]
       PUBLISHER: Montréal : Kozma Petrovitch Prutkov.
     DESCRIPTION: Paraît depuis 2010?
       FREQUENCY: Annuel
     E-LOCATIONS: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/101/201/300/annuaire_noblesse/
                   index.html Pour les fonds voir la Collection 
                   électronique de BAC.
           NOTES:  Accès restreint aux clients de BAC sur place seulement.
                  Type of computer file:  Publication en série 
                   électronique en format PDF.
         NUMBERS: Canadiana:  20113008627 
                  ISSN:  1925-5594
                  CONSER:  ocn733231825

The articles was added by user Rapportroyal two months after adding a number of borderline citations.

The publisher is listed as "Montréal : Kozma Petrovitch Prutkov" -- which appears to be a bogus or self-published publisher. You can search for the book here: [22]

Note, it's possible that citations to this book should also be removed from Wikipedia.

While I am sure the author is sincere, this book appears to fail notability tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 06:38, July 9, 2011

• Delete. I can't find any references to establish notability. No library other than Library and Archives Canada (formerly the National Library of Canada) seems to have a copy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disavian, I've seen "per nom" written various places in Wikipedia discussions. What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

per nom = for the same reasons as those cited by the nominator Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH, "nom"="nominator"... thanks. Wxidea (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am undable to find independent reliable sources that would indicate notability. Considering this work is not referenced at all on Gbooks & Gscholar, it does not appear to be a relaible source and I suggest removing it from articles where it is used to cite things. Edward321 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Being absent from Gbooks and Gscholar could just indicate that it is a very recent publication. The publisher's name, Kozma Petrovitch Prutkov, makes me very suspicious, though. See also this article's talk page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcom Peace & Justice Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article has been questioned as to whether or not it meets WP:N. Article currently has a un-sourced lead, member list, and a collection of indiscriminate links. Phearson (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has had poor sourcing for a long time. The sources it does have are self published sources such as other organization's websites. Further, i see no indication that this article meets any notability guidelines. Bonewah (talk) 21:38, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk_stalk 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Many articles are unsourced; this piece is virtually nothing but sources. Clearly over Wikipedia's notability bar as the object of multiple, independent, substantial pieces of coverage. The article is terrible, but this is correctible through the normal editing process. Correctly tagged for style. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would not call the sourcing in this article 'substantial'. Most of the sourcing is to the local newspaper, a local college newspaper or to websites that are in no way news organizations. Just spot checking the links and i find a number of them only mention the subject in passing or are only tangentially related to the subject. Mere volume of sourcing does nothing to change that. If you think this article can be improved, by all means do so, but it has been in this state for several years, and I dont see it getting any better. Bonewah (talk) 21:31, 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,  Sandstein  06:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article has ongoing coverage by local and regional press. I edited the article to move the excessive list of sources into refs. These are legit local news media, not fly-by coverage. Article does need cleanup; but it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a borderline case. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which requires that the organization has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The Whatcom organization, within Google, has a few hundred mentions by independent sources, but the sources are rather minor and local. The organization appears to be nine years old, so there is some continuity and longevity that makes me lean towards "keep". --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Longevity has no bearing. A person could live to 100 and never be notable. Phearson (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an invalid comparison. People live unless they die. But not dying is a lot harder for an organization. Organizations must be continually operating, drawing in new people, and serving/delivering. If they still have ongoing local press coverage after 9 years, they are doing good, and they are notable. Although, as I mentioned before I think this is only just past the threshold of notability. Wxidea (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that longevity does make a difference. Articles about institutions that are a year or two old should be given close inspection for promotional intent; articles about institutions that are decades old should be given the benefit of the doubt. Heading for a decade old, this subject falls between the "high bar" for a new organization and the "low bar" for a long established organization, I think. No matter, there are plenty of published sources showing and out there. Carrite (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite's expression of this. Wxidea (talk) 04:32, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jødisk Idrætsforening Hakoah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Too short article with doubtful notability. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep as it is a professional team all it needs is an improvement in information.Seasider91 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professional? Please give a source confirming it. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As WP:RUBBISH states, the quality of an article does not have a bearing on whether it should be deleted or not. Doubts about notability, however, are valid if the club fails to meet WP:FOOTYN criteria. I couldn't see any evidence for their participation in the Danish Cup in recent seasons on the statistics website rsssf.com, but according to the cup article regional teams compete for 48 first round positions so they might have done so as some rsssf seasons only document the second round fully. If there isn't any evidence for their participation in the cup elsewhere (I am unsure about other sources), then perhaps it should be deleted. On the other hand, there may be a weak general notability case; according to rsssf they are the only Jewish football club in Denmark [23]. Deserter1 20:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability; being the only Jewish club in Denmark is not enough. Mention at History of the Jews in Denmark and/or Football in Denmark instead. GiantSnowman 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find anything reliable to establish notability. Certainly fails WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:20, 9 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not seem to be notable, in the WP sense, although he seems to be talented and ambitious. Lack of secondary sources which give us information about him. BigJim707 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author was given time to provide WP:N sources, yet failed to do so. Only sources are those that are the subject's self published website. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OTRS note: Some text from the article was confirmed as free-use licensed per OTRS, [24]. I'm not expressing sentiment regarding notability itself, and will defer to community about that. — Cirt (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--there's only one reliable source in the article, and it quotes him in passing. As far as I can tell he isn't notable yet, and the article makes no claims that he is. Meelar (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Marketing Transformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. While Sustainability marketing exists, Sustainability Marketing Transformation doesn't outside of one recent book by Belz and Peattie. It's a novel concept, failing if not verifiability then by a large margin our notability guidelines. There are only seven Google hits for the term (excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors)[25], all but one by the authors of the book. Google Books and Google Scholar return no results (apart from the index of the same book). Fram (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete. Unreadable bollocks:

Within the present institutional framework, the successful marketing of sustainable products is possible, but limited. That is why a change in institutions is necessary to expand in the intersection between socio-ecological problems and consumption. Sustainability pioneers and leaders can harness enlightened self-interest to change public and political institutions and thus enhance sustainable development. Sustainability Marketing Transformation is explained by three different perspectives:

• The first one is the Outside-In Perspective, in which ecological and social problems such as Climate change, Overexploitation or Peak oil are gaining a place in the current market and the way in which they influence it.
• The second one, the Inside Perspective, describes how companies modify and react to outside pressures by denying, ignoring, accommodating or accepting the process and trying to follow or not the Sustainability Marketing trend.
• The third one is the Inside-Out Perspective where companies can present themselves as driving forces for changing the market, regarding to social and environmental problems and enhancing public and political compromise.

Text like this is what minds gifted with enough leisure and vocabulary come up with when they have pages to fill and no ideas to fill them with. And they inexplicably omitted the Outside Perspective, which would have extended the Power Point presentation by at least one more slide. At least the miserable audience is being told they're Leaders and Pioneers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I am also nominating the following related pages:

Sustainability marketing strategies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This also appeared out of nowhere, fully formed at the outset from a user with no other edits, and again is written in the same kind of headache inducing prose, and plugs the same book and consultant:

Sustainability marketing strategies are defined as strategies, which allow to satisfy consumer’s needs, provide an achievement of company’s sustainability goals and objectives and ensure that marketing activities are sustainable . Sustainability marketing strategies, according to Belz and Peattie (2009), are one of the six key elements of the sustainability marketing, next to socio-ecological problems, consumer behaviour, sustainability marketing values and objectives, sustainability marketing mix and sustainability marketing transformations.

Sustainability marketing strategy like any other marketing strategy is a mixture of carefully planned steps and informal patterns of decisions and actions which include reaching sustainability marketing values and objects. To make it in appropriate way a good understanding of marketing environment (micro and macro) and its actors are necessary. The sustainability marketing strategy should respond to consumer needs and market opportunities, include its capabilities and resources and also reflect to company sustainability values.

Sustainability strategies provide a framework to allow business sectors recognize and manage social, environmental and economic risks in an integrated way, and use opportunities to improve competitiveness and heighten reputation.....

- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The concept of sustainability has been around for decades (notability) and current world events and factors are transforming the way the world does do business. This not an opinion, this is a fact and should not be avoided to promote a point of view. It is the responsibility of the article's author to prove the article explains this reality accurately and appropriately. I would suggest the author avoid buzzwords and approach the article with a neutral and balanced point of view and rely heavily on cited, credible and verifiable secondary and tertiary sources of reference to strengthen the article. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Assuming for the sake of argument that the underlying subject is a topic that belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a marketing topic, I'm still not convinced that any of these.... verbal performances are worth keeping. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability is notable. Sustainability is not up for deletion though. The rest of your argument does not address these two articles at all. Your suggestions are good, if and only if said sources exist. All we have though is a primary source, a book that introduces the SMT term, but not sufficient reliable, independent sources about this. Fram (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The articles seem to read like essays and are written in a non-encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is not an essay host. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Smerdis - the text is unreadable blather, whatever its other merits. In policy terms, I am unconvinced that this is not an original research essay.  Sandstein  08:57, 17 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 moot. The article has been rewritten as Mobile museums (in RVs). If that article is also deficient it would require a separate discussion. Consensus here is that the "Moveable Museum" is not suited for an article of its own.  Sandstein  09:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moveable Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It is a minor offering compared to many of the permanent exhibits in the AMNH, which do not have their own articles on Wikipedia, let alone a mention on AMNH's wiki article. It is a service of the Museum's education department, not in any way a major part of the greater museum's collections or research. Simply, it's not it's own entity.

The wiki-link to "Gottesman Center for Science Teaching and Learning" which just redirects to the AMNH article, which does not even have a section on its gottesman center, something so improbably looked up at all, makes this look like a bit of a vanity page created by someone in the museum's education department.

The majority of the sources for this article are either published by the museum, or are regarding specific events, visits by the moveable to communities in local papers, or municipal education dept literature also describing specific events. I can not find any articles about the MM in a de facto NYC news source, say, the Times. ViniTheHat (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vini, thanks for your comments. While the Moveable Museum may be small relative to some other programs at the museum which do not have their own articles, as you may know, coverage or lack thereof in Wikipedia itself can neither establish or disestablish notability. Per the general notability guideline, the important question is whether the subject has gained significant coverage in reliable sources. Because the Moveable Museum is a very unusual program in New York, it has garnered a number of articles in the local newspapers (such as the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and the Woodside Herald). In addition, the program has attracted a great deal of interest in the local education community (including publications of the New York City Department of Eduation and the New York University Patient Library). It has also had some coverage in the national education community (such as publications from the organizers of National Lab Day and National Science Week). Below is a list of the sources cited, organized by type. I agree the article reads like it was written by a museum representative, but the solution to that is rewriting, not deleting. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers:

2.^ "JIMMY VAN BRAMER BRINGS MOVEABLE MUSEUM TO QUEENSBRIDGE FOR FAMILY DAY". Woodside Herald. 25-Jun-10. http://woodsideherald.com/uploads/Woodside_6_25_10.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

5.^ "Fossilized Bones, Dinosaur Poo Are Hit in Park Slope". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. December 4, 2009. http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=9&id=32312. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

9.^ "Moveable Museum". Stuyvesant Town Events. http://www.stuytown.com/#/events. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

10.^ "At Staten Island School, a Moving Way to Learn". SILive.com. 3-Oct-10. http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2008/10/at_staten_island_school_a_movi.html. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

21.^ "American Museum Of Natural History Visits Rockaway". The Wave. August 3, 2007. http://www.rockawave.com/news/2007-08-03/community/004.html. Retrieved 2011-04-15.

22.^ "American Museum Of Natural History Visits Rockaway". The Wave. August 3, 2007. http://www.rockawave.com/news/2007-08-03/community/004.html. Retrieved 2011-04-15.

23.^ "Fossilized Bones, Dinosaur Poo Are Hit in Park Slope". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. December 4, 2009. http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=9&id=32312. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

Education community sources:

3.^ "The Moveable Museum". Edwize.org. November 3, 2010. http://www.edwize.org/the-moveable-museum. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

6.^ "American Museum of Natural History Moveable Museum Program “Discovering the Universe” visits P.S. 225". NYC Department of Education. http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/21/K225/newsandinfo/News/amnhvisit.htm. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

8.^ "Moveable Museum". National Lab Day. http://www.nationallabday.org/resources/all?filter%5Bprovided_by%5D=American+Museum+of+Natural+History. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

11.^ "Dinosaurs, Moveable Museums, and Science!". United States Department of Education. 8-Nov-10. http://www.ed.gov/oese-news/dinosaurs-moveable-museums-and-science. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

12.^ "AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY BRINGS DINOSAURS "EXHIBIT-ON-WHEELS" TO LOCAL PRESCHOOLERS". Educational Alliance. http://www.edalliance.org/index.php?src=news&submenu=ArtGalleriesUpcoming&srctype=detail&category=Early%20Childhood&refno=72. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

13.^ "AMNH Moveable at Family Fun Day". Family Health Resource Center & Patient Library. http://www.nyupatientlibrary.org/hassenfeld/news/6-30-08/amnh-moveable-museum-family-fun-day. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

14.^ "M.O.N.H (sic) Moveable Museum". ColoriumLaboratorium. http://coloriumlaboratorium.com/m-o-n-h-moveable-museum. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

19.^ "American Museum of Natural History Moveable Museum Program “Discovering the Universe” visits P.S. 225". NYC DOE Schools Portal News and Announcements. December 9, 2008. http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/21/K225/newsandinfo/News/amnhvisit.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-15.

20.^ "American Museum of Natural History Moveable Museum Program “Discovering the Universe” visits P.S. 225". NYC DOE Schools Portal News and Announcements. December 9, 2008. http://schools.nyc.gov/SchoolPortals/21/K225/newsandinfo/News/amnhvisit.htm. Retrieved 2011-04-15.

Museum Website:

1.^ "American Museum of Natural History 2009 Annual Report". The American Museum of Natural History. http://www.amnh.org/about/AMNH_AR_2009.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

4.^ "American Museum of Natural History 2009 Annual Report". The American Museum of Natural History. http://www.amnh.org/about/AMNH_AR_2009.pdf. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

7.^ "Moveable Museums Make Trip to D.C. (video)". AMNH Youtube Channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0NZzEQ3xno. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

15.^ "Paleontology of Dinosaurs (K-2)". American Museum of Natural History. http://www.amnh.org/education/school_groups/offering.php?id=194. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

16.^ "Dinosaurs: Ancient Fossils, New Discoveries (3-8)". American Museum of Natural History. http://www.amnh.org/education/school_groups/offering.php?id=194. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

17.^ "Anthropology: Structures & Culture". American Museum of Natural History. http://www.amnh.org/education/school_groups/offering.php?id=195. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

18.^ "Astronomy: Discovering the Universe". American Museum of Natural History. http://www.amnh.org/education/school_groups/offering.php?id=196. Retrieved 2010-12-03.

However, I've already addressed this. the sources that are not AMNH published, are covering events, moveable museum visits, in community newspapers, as well as DOE announcements, which are primarily there to inform schools of this service. By extension, various penny-socials are notorious. ViniTheHat (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you don't think coverage of an event constitutes coverage of the program putting on that event, but you haven't established that Wikipedia policy makes that distinction. I don't understand how you're deriving your position from the text of WP:Note or other Wikipedia policies. I also have to admit I can't make heads or tails of the phrase "various penny-socials are notorious". Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to AMNH. Doesn't appear to be worthy of its own article but is a valid search term. Content could be boiled down and merged into AMNH article StarM 23:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to point this out, but it's also not good to have the primary editor of an article be affiliated with the organization it is about. as in:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5pn1nMAyiPUJ:www.jacketflap.com/profile.asp%3Fmember%3DAelffin+nathan+mcknight+amnh&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com ViniTheHat (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just poisoning the well. Has my editing been unduly lauditory? Have I written myself into the article? Is the article blatantly promotional? Has the article's content in any way violated WP:NPOV? If not, then I'd appreciate it if we can stick to the WP:Verifiable facts and to the matter of WP:Notability as established by WP:Reliable Sources. Whether this program rates as notable should be argued on policy, not ad hominem, and I think the policy is pretty clear. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of full disclosure, I did once work for the Moveable Museum program and I do currently work for the American Museum of Natural History. For this reason, I am very careful to follow Wikipedia policy with respect to articles about my former employer and, for that matter, articles about all other subjects I find interesting because I am conscious of trying to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. I have read WP:COI and I understand the risks associated with editing an article with which one has had a professional relationship, but as I've said, I feel my edits have been solidly WP:NPOV. As a matter of fact, I have discouraged other former Moveable Museum employees from adding promotional material to the article or editing it at all without having familiarity with Wikipedia policy, and my support for keeping this article is no different from my past support for keeping other articles about subjects with which I have no affiliation. I simply feel that our policy for inclusion should be interpreted broadly because Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia. Please see Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia for further details. Please also see WP:COI, particularly the part that says "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." I fully believe that your edits are done in good faith, and I hope you'll extend to me the same consideration. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to AMNH. Article is notable and valid as a search interest but not large enough to stand on its own.--Uriel ramirez (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd be okay with merging, but I feel the AMNH article is already getting a bit long, and including all notable aspects of its programming will almost certainly cause it to quickly become unwieldly. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with new page on Mobile exhibits on trucks/RVs. There is no reason Wikipedia should have an article about this program from AMNH. However, what's lacking is an article about mobile museums exhibits, which are important and are notable. And AMNH is a great example of this. See this blog post for more information: Mobile museums (on a truck): History and science delivered. The new article should be analogous to this: Virtual museum Wxidea (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the article. It still needs cleanup. No question, mobile museums on RVs is notable. New article -- Mobile_museums_(in_RVs) -- talks more generally about mobile exhibitions.Wxidea (talk) 14:35, 9 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.