< 26 June	28 June >

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The result was Keep with nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure Edgepedia (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Owens (politician)

[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:BIO. This is an article about minor one-term Ontario MPP. Sole source provided does not even point to right electoral results anymore. Sustymenko (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC) — Sustymenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Does meet WP:BIO. Please reread section on Politicians, criteria 1. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could stand to have some more references, but the link to his biography from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario verifies that he meets WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1, specifically that he is a "former member of a national, state or provincial legislature." —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course. Interesting to note how few edits the nominator has. → ROUX ₪ 15:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, WP:SNOWBALL. MPPs are by default notable, and this one was also in cabinet as a Minister without Portfolio. PK T(alk) 18:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is rather frivolous. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per everyone bar the nominator. CJCurrie (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2011

(UTC)

Widthraw - obviously I misread the existing rules. Sustymenko (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri Fink (children's author)

[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a self-published author. Google search on ("The Little Rose" "Sheri Fink") (to disambiguate from another Sheri Fink) only brings up about 135 unique returns. Very little coverage from reliable sources. One local news article, the rest appear to be blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating article for her book for the same reasons above:

Delete Both, I can find no indication that this author or her book is notable, only the local news article, and blogs found by the nominator. As I said in another AfD, they all have the feel of someone trying to get noticed and not of someone who has been noticed and in this case is further backed up by the fact that these articles have been created by the author herself. Mtking (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - promotional, lacks suitable evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 20:39, 4 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Webb (author)

[edit]

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

Individual simply is not notable. Little meaningful content. Association with someone famous is not enough. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established, and the article contains no references to verify what is there. - SudoGhost ™ 19:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fab family

[edit]

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

Contested PROD where the reasoning was Unreferenced article, group with no significant claims of notability. I was going to speedy it using A7, but figured it might be better to get a consensus on this article instead. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability does not appear to have been established, appears to be simply a promotional platform. - SudoGhost ™ 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 20:41, 4 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KDrew

[edit]

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

Subject does not appear notable. All of the article's sources originate from PR Newswire, and I suspect that they were written by someone closely connected with the subject of the article and cannot be considered independent or reliable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 96.244.254.20 (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be added which are not related to PR Newswire. - SudoGhost ™ 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noventri

[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References consist of a series of press releases and self-published advertorials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another global digital signage solutions provider and manufacturer advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced only to PR stories in trade magazines. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a digital signage company that was around before the birth of digital signage and continues to maintain a strong presence in the market despite the economy. They work with such well-known names as Aramark, Marriott, Delaware North, Hilton, Holiday Inn, and many, many more and have been a resource to such names as Lyle Bunn, a well-establish speaker and consultant in the digital signage field. Although they are not publicly traded they have managed to continue to turn a profit despite the closure of many digital signage solutions manufacturers and providers. They don't just resell other brands they are a brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judymaedandelion (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a wonderful marketing speech. Judy Hoffman, Noventri's Marketing Manager, would be proud of it. However, it still doesn't show how Noventri meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion for companies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails WP:CORP, and for Ms. Hoffman's benefit, I recommend she take a peek at WP:NOTINHERITED as well. I note that the corporation of which the subject is ostensibly a division lacks a Wikipedia article, and likely in its own right fails WP:CORP. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For clarity, I should point out that there is no clear evidence to indicate that Judymaedandelion (talk · contribs) is the aforementioned Judy Hoffman and any attempts to make such a connection would be WP:OUTING. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with both Specialized Communications and Noventri in the past. very reputable company. Interestingly, SpecComm is the only authorized Panasonic repair center in the US outside of Panasonic itself. They provide service and sales to all the major broadcast companies throughout the US. Don't know a whole lot about their digital signage division except that I have seen their screens in such places as The Newseum and the Baltimore Orioles Camden Yards.Bobcat001 (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Bobcat001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment: To quote from WP:CORP: "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Would you care to identify any such significant sources which satisfies the requirements of WP:IRS? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 14:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that I see their name all over DVXUser.com, Creative Cow and DVInfo.com. They are like the go to guys for video gear and tech questions.Bobcat001 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richi Davis

[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Even if the article was fully sourced I don't believe this talent scout would meet our notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 19:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established. - SudoGhost ™ 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PAZ Ecovillage

[edit]

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

Although it sounds interesting, I couldn't find any sources that gave any information on this community. In Google news archives a short article in Scientific American included it on a list of eco-villages. Books and Scholar on Google pointed to lots of material on eco-villages in Bolivia (mentioning also its capital La Paz) but nothing on this one in Texas. BigJim707 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GenOS (operating system)

[edit]

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

A linux distribution with no indication of WP:notability. No WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, it seems. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complex adaptive communication network

[edit]

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

Is this a valid article in its own right or a fork of others such as complex adaptive system and complex system? I get the feeling it is just a vehicle for Muaz Niazi to promote his own papers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roger,

I am actually desperately trying to create a page (my first ever on Wiki) on a newly emerging area of research. I believe you wrongfully considered that I have perhaps only created the page for advertisement of my papers. As a matter of fact, I only added those papers since when I first created the page, you added the deletion notice so I basically added references hoping that it would address the problems that you were noticing (This being the first time I am adding a new Wiki page as far as I can recall). While I have only right now started adding material to this page, my articles are not the only papers in this domain. A large number of people have been developing this area recently and I shall hopefully get to add their articles in due time. Can you please kindly assist me in what I should do to make a valid case for a Wiki page as this area of complex adaptive networks is a separate area and definitely needs a separate focus and attention. Thanks for your time. Let me know if you agree/disagree with this. If there is some other way this area can be addressed, I shall be happy to delete this page and assist in it. Thanks.

Warm regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that comment because the fact that there are numerous Journal and conference papers on this area shows the area is well-developed. If you are conversant with Academic Journal publishing, it takes several years before a single academic paper gets from initial work to publication in any Journal of high standing. Please disprove me if you have any solid evidence to contradict this statement. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a notable subject for an article. Treating communication networks as complex adaptive systems has a long history. One person writing papers on an example of a CAS does not an article make - delete. --Snowded ^TALK 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As mentioned by the other reviewer, it has long history and lot of people have written on this topic and the article no longer has links to one person's papers. It has been massively edited and mentioned those numerous links to different authors' papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure what other reviewer you are talking about? user Snowded did not see this topic as notable, just pointed out that complex adaptive system had a history, not this one. It already has an article (which needs work too). I have to admit I had about 35 years experience in computer networks, but could not follow complex adaptive communication network. The topic is not even defined as per lead section guidelines. It just starts out talking about complex adaptive systems in general, stating an odd definition twice? The "nonliniarly" moniker for example is unusual: what communication networks would be considered "linear" then? Then it comes up with the term CACOONS, which sort of sounds like an acronym but is never expanded or given a reference. Is it in some non-English language? Is the article supposed to be about the networks themselves or models or simulations of them? And of course obvious "complex adaptive communication networks" would be the work of Paul Baran in the 1960s and the ARPANET, but these are not mentioned.

Much of it reads like a research proposal. That is not how articles are written on an encyclopedia, one of which Wikipedia is supposed to be. For example, never say "nowadays" "recently" or "several years for now" or advertise future publications or give opinions about WIkipedia in articles. They are supposed to describe the named topic, not be essays making an argument about them. "Current state" articles belong in academic or "newsy" publications. Many other style errors, such as using refs as subjects of sentences, an inline link, few wikilinks, etc. I would suggest moving it into a "sandbox" under your user page and taking some time familiarizing yourself with the policies and style guidelines used on Wikipedia. The "Did you know" articles on the front page are ones that are new but pass some level of review. Even better are the "featured" articles on the front page. Or go to a related project and find the ones rated "good" for example. W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Nowicki, first of all, thank you so much for the detailed comment. As I had noted earlier, I am actually quite happy with the delete as long as there is an article which addresses this exact area (intersection of cas and communication networks). While I am quite comfortable with networks and cas, as I mentioned this is my first page on wikipedia so I guess I was not quite sure exactly how to structure it according to wiki guidelines so appreciate the guidance. Secondly, the point I am trying to make is not that cas are new or that any communication network is nonlinear, which it of course is, the point is that previous approaches to modeling networks do not focus on cas, properties of which, we are only just learning about(as in work which has appeared only perhaps in the last two decades such as Stanislaw Ulam, Hofstadter, Holland et al. and others related to the Santa Fe Institute and the New England Complex Systems Institute). I am surprised how you can say cas (which is actually a relatively new modeling approach) can be said to have been used in ARPANET and Paul Baran's work on packets. Would you kindly mention some papers from the 60's which have *applied* the "cas" approach to communication networks? I would actually be truly happy if there were any and would love to read them as that would be like a re-definition of the history of cas modeling. To the best of my knowledge, while cas themselves (such as living systems, cells, multi-cellular organisms etc) have been here for millions of years on earth, only recently research has been conducted on performing explicit modeling of cas. And the key modeling approaches include using agent-based modeling and complex network analysis (See Mitchell's treatise Complexity: A guided tour). As such if there are any editorial problems, (arguably this being my first experience with wiki page-creation), I guess with your experience in networks, you can help merge/move/title/edit this material to a separate page, deleting this one, as needed and I would be perfectly happy. Thanks again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niazim1 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally Wikipedia articles are about concepts, and we try to avoid neologisms. Baran and Kleinrock certainly had models of communication networks in the 1960s, and debating if they are "complex" or "adaptive" depends on your definition. They were for their time. In academia it might be popular to coin new terms and acronyms to make it sound like a new field is being invented. Sometimes the terms catch on beyond a narrow audience. I have no idea if these are each worth of articles, but the burden of proof is on the proposer of the new article to make the distinction clear to readers who are not familiar with the subject. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enuff Z'nuff

[edit]

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

As the article says, they have not achieved major success. Half the refs are 404, the rest seem to be lists or directories. I'm not finding non-trivial independent coverage of this band as a subject, only passing mentions. Google News comes up with passing mentions also. All the substantive content appears to be the work of single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the major recording label experience, I believe that they pass WP:BAND. The article could use better referencing and overall improvement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band does appear to be well covered in several Rolling Stone articles. this article describe how they were becoming less popular after Guns N' Roses and the grunge movement. this article quotes them several times about opinions on Rocklahoma. this article is about their collaboration with Smashing Pumpkins. --I Jethrobot (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Billboard's website confirms the chart placings, the US chart placings can be confirmed at Allmusic ([1]), and Martin Strong's The Great Metal Discography confirms hit albums and singles in the US and the UK, and includes significant coverage, as does Allmusic. There's further coverage in SPIN and Billboard. Enuff Z'nuff. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple charting releases on notable labels, easily passes WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with comments above, clearly a notable band. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps worse than Cinderella, and oh how I wish they weren't notable, but they are. Among the lower rungs of the late 80s hair-metal bands, they were still somewhat popular and released at least two album on a major label. And were the subject of mainstream press coverage.[2][3][4][5][6]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:55, 4 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knomo

[edit]

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

Does not meet notability - would need to be completely rewritten to meet wikipedia standards and has no reliable sources. Reichsfürst (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. All coverage is blogs. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator and sole editor has been blocked 'because your username gives the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website'. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 1 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bloch

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable - has not met either criteria of: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Reichsfürst (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article has many problems. I had to remove a lot of pointless information about his student jobs and his work experience. Also the subject does not seem to meet our notability guidelines. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page creator just posted a response and signed it using my name...Reichsfürst (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my script editor made an error there. Logic and decency dictates it could not have been a deliberate act. I'd argue that there is a lot of subjectivity being asserted here. What is pointless about setting out the context and history of a career choice of a prominent person in an industry? What constitutes notability in marketing in PR in the opinion of the wikipedia community? What analogous entries does the community suggest for reference? What is seen as a widely recognised contribution? Serial mentions in trade media and from peers do not suffice? One could suggest that strong feelings about the industry this individual has contributed to have created disproportionate interest in the swift truncation and deletion of his biography. May I appeal to the better, more collaborative and collegiate members of the WikiPedia community to advise and mediate here? --JaySorrels (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such thing as a script editor error. You clearly made this post by hand. Assuming good faith, we shall assume that you made a cut-and-paste that didn't go quite right. Make sure it never happens again. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the editor has a clear conflict of interest, a quick google will tell you he is 'Head of Digital at Frank'. Reichsfürst (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I am. I make no attempt to misrepresent myself or significant individuals associated with me. I do not use some handle or witty, cryptic pseudonym and proxy server. This individual has been cited as influential and notable in a major UK industry by its publication of record 5 times. The firm with which he is associated is seen as an important presence by peers. Stakeholders have repeatedly asked if there is a simple wikipedia biography of him. My only desire is to work with the community in an amicable spirit of co-operation to come up with an entry acceptable to all. I am not trying to damage wikipedia or insert irrelevances. Again, I appeal to the good nature of the administration community to advise and intervene - surely that's how this is supposed to work?--JaySorrels (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~The PR agency appears to have some notability in the UK.~~ I've added citations to the article for the PR award won from the UK magazine called Marketing, and the detailed description of Bloch in PR Week magazine, both of which are part of the Haymarket Group. Multiple forms of recognition by services dedicated to British advertising and the public relations industry ought to be notable. --I Jethrobot (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and especially WP:ITSA. The article is a biographical article about a person. The article needs to show notability of the subject. This is not an article about his PR company (which would also fail WP:ORG). — Fly by Night (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Your point about WP:ITSA is noted (though we can discuss the notability of the PR company itself when it is appropriate). Thank you. However, there is still independent, specific coverage of Bloch here and here and here that I stand by. I Jethrobot (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first reference is a PR directory. It's 120 pages of PR people. I counted 400+ included in that directory. If that is a proper source then I should get an article: I'm in the phone book too! The second reference is a link to an organisation that he helped to set up, and he's included in the "who's involved" section. One can't set up one's own website, write about oneself, and then claim it's non-trivial, independent coverage. The third reference is about his PR company, in which he is mentioned by association. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second source is not independent, but I disagree that the first source is a "phone book." Rolling Stone could also be a phone book for artists and musicians by your reasoning. The third reference is not exclusively about the company, it is about Bloch's background and what he did to start and make the company successful. Also, Bloch is being directly interviewed about it. I disagree that these two sources can be discounted in the way you have described above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given. Eeekster (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I certainly see references claiming this award or that for the subject's agency. I don't see evidence of notability for Bloch himself; he neither meets any of the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Suggestions that we could only apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines out of malice towards the subject's profession is a display of bad faith, and I further recommend that Mr. Sorrels place his focus on coming up with the mainstream media sources which would secure a pass under the GNG. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking to satisfy GNG in every way I can and work along with the community here. There are over 50,000 senior PR professionals in the UK. With respect, the PR Week PowerBook is not a phone book at all, it represents the editorial team’s collective view of the sub 1% it feels are the most important and notable. More references can be added to independent, respected trade publications. Is there a precedent for the trade publication of record for an industry sector to be seen to fail GNG? What about an independent Who's Who? What is the definition of mainstream media and does this exclude trade or special interest media?--JaySorrels (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recommend you review the links already posted to your talk page, which describe in detail how best to create a Wikipedia article and the criteria we employ to gauge notability. That being said, what we look for in mainstream sources is, well, mainstream sources. Has Bloch ever been interviewed by the BBC? Are there profiles of him in the Times or the Economist? Has he received significant coverage in a book from a major publisher? That's the level of media attention we seek. As far as industry sources go, our experience is that the great majority are puff pieces tantamount to advertising, and very few of them pass muster as reliable sources. That being said, the only source in the article which discusses Bloch in the "significant detail" WP:BIO requires is the GorkanaPR article, but GorkanaPR's own notability is questionable; I could find, for instance, no hits on Google UK's News for it, which doesn't speak well for its importance in the field.
Finally, the conflict of interest here is serious; you admit to being an employee of Bloch's in charge of digital matters. Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest strongly discourages you from creating or editing articles where the conflict applies, for just this situation: "How do I find some rule under which we can sneak my boss' article through?" rather than "Does this subject qualify for an article?" ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 19:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, the keep opinion is not really policy based (that they aren't just bus stop stations but BRT stations makes no difference, they are just spaced farther apart basically) and doesn't address the "fails the GNG" aspect of the nomination. Merging to a list of non notable stations isn't really helping either. Tghe logical, easy solution is to list all stations of a certain line, on the article for that line, and to only have separate articles for truly, individually notable stations. Fram (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16th-Carrville (VIVA)

[edit]

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

These articles fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There's nothing notable about any of these bus stations (fail WP:GNG), and they shouldn't have their own articles. I have no idea how so many of them have managed to survive for six years, but it's time to get rid of them. Slon02 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following stations for deletion. I have kept VIVA terminals, as well as VIVA stations that are part of a larger (such as subway) transport system, out of this AfD:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete along with this article:

due to the same reason Slon02 has. If this is the case then definitely terminals and BRT stations on a grade-separated transitway should remain. (Singh001175 (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete massive buscruft. If someone wants to take it upon themselves to merge/redirect to Viva (bus rapid transit) I would not object, but otherwise just delete. (To closing admin: Be sure to delink any incoming links to pages when deleting!). Neutrality^talk 05:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (changed from "Keep")- These aren't just bus stops but rapid transit way stations o~~n dedicated right-of-ways like Boston's Silver Line, very much in the same sense as rail stations.~~ This batch nomination is way too big for for an AfD with an unmanageable amount of possible opinion combinations. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply as the topic of transitway stations are very discriminate and not a "Plot-only description of fictional works," a "lyrics database" or an "excessive listing of statistics" which are what WP:INDISCRIMINATE forbids and there is nothing about WP:NOTGUIDE which applies to transitway stations. --Oakshade (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately as of now, VIVA doesn't have dedicated lanes (neither Zum does), other than the one along Enterprise Drive. YRT/Viva transit fans can definitely recreate all the Vivastations once the permanent rapidway structure is completely done and that is by the next decade. (Singh001175 (talk) 03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Merge These are all regular bus stops, except for Warden, which is a BRT stop, and Markham Stouffville Hospital, which YRT considers as a terminal. However, even though they do not warrant separate articles, they do have useful information, so they should simply be merged into the Other Vivastations page. Regarding Viva's lack of bus-only lanes: In addition to the Enterprise Rapidway, Viva also uses the York University Busway, and although it does not have any stops on bus only roads, Murray Ross and Dufferin Finch have dedicated bus lanes, and the southbound platform at Dufferin-Finch even has a bus-only passing lane in addition to the bus bay. Reaperexpress (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) The consensus here appears to be to either keep, or in some cases, to redirect the article to another. But redirection is not something, in this instance, that would require any administrative action to do, and redirecting the article, if appropriate, is something that can be discussed on the article talk page. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgians

[edit]

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

Belgian people redirects to Belgium since 2007. This article's full of dubious uncited statements, so it's violating WP:OR. I'm sorry but "Belgians" as an ethnic group doesn't exist. This article will never reach the quality of Americans as a "nationality", because most Americans identify themselves as Americans while Belgians generally indentify themselves as belonging either to Wallonia or Flanders. Belgium is inhabited by two major ethnic groups: Fleming and Walloons. Of course there are people with Belgian citizenship and there are people living in Belgium, but that's already mentioned in the article named Demographics of Belgium. This article can actually increase confusion because a lot of people outside Belgium are unaware of the country's ethnic split and also because there once was (thousands of years ago) a Celtic tribe called Belgae which could be translated into Belgians . Secondly this article doesn't even include clear and significant examples of the shared common ethnicity.

I think the page should either redirect to Belgium or made into a disambig page linking to Belgae, Demographics of Belgium and culture of Belgium. Deraderum (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)— Deraderum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Merge to multiple sources and Redirect to Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium I agree with Deraderum's sentiments above. Some of the cited information here is worth keeping. I'm not quite sure where this information ought to go, though. I like the idea of merging the religion information into Demographics of Belgium, but the info on meaning of national identity and communities should be merged into Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. Overall, I think the redirect for "Belgians" should be to Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium, as the term refers to the national subgroups represented within the country. --I Jethrobot (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that there are no such people is absurd - like claiming that there are no British or Swiss. The title of the article seems to be a WP:COMMONNAME used in sources such as The Belgians, History of the Belgians, Belgians in the United States, &c. For an example of a encyclopedic entry elsewhere, please see Encyclopedia of European peoples which has a substantial entry entitled Belgians: nationality. Warden (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden. I didn't say Belgians did not exist. You misinterpreted my words! I said Belgians, as an ethnic group, don't exist. You can read about Belgian nationality in the Belgian nationality law article. Belgian people generally identify themselves as either coming from Flanders or Wallonia. And why theres no People of the Vatican? Be WP:BOLD if you think they deserve an article. Deraderum (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comparison to the British and Swiss is unhelpful. Both have far longer national histories than Belgium, the British (to a considerable extent) share a common language, and the Swiss had a long history of common external threats (most commonly the Hapsburgs) to form a common bond. Belgium on the other hand has a fairly recent history (from 1830, prior to which the region had a very checkered/piecemeal past) and neither language nor culture (but only Catholicism) in common. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a younger country, see Italians. We even have Wikipedians. Warden (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Warden. In addition, nom (though I can understand him not knowing this, if this nomination is indeed his 3rd wp edit, ever) may be interested in knowing that AfD is not for clean-up. If he has clean-up concerns, he can more properly raise those on the article talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give a very sound argument to keep the article, as writing "per x" doesn't really help the dicussion. See WP:PERNOM. You didn't explain how this article is improvable, for instance. Deraderum (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay -- the views of one or more editors. My view: that editor's essay makes little sense. "Per x" means "for the reasons stated by x". No need to clutter an AfD by recasting the precise same language in other terms. BTW -- for an editor with 3 edits to his name, you seem to be citing rules like an old-timer -- can you share w/us any names you have edited other in the past (or are still editing under)? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't, sorry :) Deraderum (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just like we have informative and well-sourced articles on French people and Swiss people – also generally not considered ethnic groups, but groups defined by citizenship – we should have an informative and well-sourced article on Belgian people. --Lambiam 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Notability is not inherited, see WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF for a better understanding why your argument should be avoided in deletion discussions. Deraderum (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was debunking your argument that goes like: "Belgians" as an ethnic group doesn't exist; ergo they should not have an article. The counterexamples of French people and Swiss people show that this particular argument doesn't hold water; you'll have to come up with something else. Are you arguing that the Belgians are so thoroughly unnotable that no informative reliable sources about them exist? --Lambiam 20:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do believe that Belgians exists, and that they, like other national groups, are notable enough to have an article about them. Dream Focus 10:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you just used Two arguments to avoid in the same sentence: WP:ITEXISTS and WP:INHERIT. Deraderum (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some questioned if they existed so I said they do. The Wikipedia policy of WP:VERIFIABILITY demands we prove it exists. And my arguments was they were notable. Mentioning that other such groups are also notable, in the same sentence, has nothing to do with the inherited bit. That essay is just a suggestion, not a guideline or policy, and you are taking examples out of context. Dream Focus 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of context" ? You contradict yourself, you said that notability is inherited because it is a national group "just like every other". And, an "example" of WP:INHERIT as cited by Wikipedia is "Keep All examples of foo are inherently notable." Deraderum (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect or turn into a disambiguation page pointing to Walloonians, Flemings, etc. It is WP:Complete bollocks to claim them to be "shar[ing] a common Belgian culture" when Culture of Belgium clearly and prominently states the very different cultural centres of gravity between the two "main cultural communities" and grounds their commonality "as an integral part of European culture or Western culture" rather than any specific 'Belgian culture'. This article is quite simply an artificial (i.e. WP:OR) Frankenstein's monster. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Mister Treasury!. I am afraid that your reasoning should be avoided as described in WP:ATA. It's not enough if you WP:LIKE the article. Several editors have pointed out reasonable arguments why to delete this article so this nomination might not be so ridiculous after all. Deraderum (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think most of us agree this nomination is rather ridiculous. Why would an encyclopedia like Wikipedia not list every group of people, but instead only list some? An encyclopedia should be complete and cover all of them. Dream Focus 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most "keep" comments here are pointing to WP:INHERIT which is an argument to AVOID. If anyone has suggestions, ideas how to resolve the critical problems of the article that I've described in the nomination, it's the time to do it. So far neither of the keep votes did that. Deraderum (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the closing administrator to decide. You made the case that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST in your nomination, which is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this", it was just to show not EVERY country on earth should have its own people's article. In my opinion, an article about Vaticanese people is not very useful, pretty much like the Belgians article, but if you want to start an article about Vaticanese people, be my guest. Deraderum (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were it not for the fact that I always assume good faith(actually that's not true at all, it's hard, but I try, I do try) I would have thought that this nomination was a joke.
The comparison with Americans is not only irrelevant but fatuous in the extreme. pablo 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why fatuous? Why writing pejorative words without explaining what you mean? USA is a country, Belgium is a country. Period. Thus the "comparison" might not be so fatous Deraderum (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the way that Americans may or may not think of themselves has nothing to do with the way that Belgians may or may not think of themselves, and even less to do with whether the word "Belgians" correctly describes a group of people about whom it is entirely possible to write an encyclopaedia article. pablo 08:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—There are sufficient reliable sources available to establish the topic of Belgian people (as distinct from Belgium) as a notable topic.[7][8][9][10][11] &c. &c. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep The only conceivable viable argument is that Belgians are not an entity. Regardless of whether they are composed of various groups, they have all for a few centuries lived under one government, and thus form (or at least have formed) a nation. The article should be revised to show that the basis is the nationality, not something as vague as the culture. If the country splits, as does seem possible, we would then list newly notable people under the appropriate country, but the ones who were notable when Belgium remained a nation would still be under Belgians. Even now, those strongly associated with one culture area should be listed there also, just as we list notable people associated with the US states, for example, List of people from Iowa. The only rational explanation for this nomination I can see is strong nationalist attachment to one of regions — though rational, it's not a relevant argument here, for we observe a NPOV. This does not explain the few experienced Wikipedians supporting this deletion, so I will guess they might simply want to delete as many articles (or at least lists) as possible, regardless of the merits. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, there's already a list of belgians. We can redirect Belgians there. 109.64.106.200 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. They are not mutually exclusive.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It snows in Belgium, too. The article as written is acceptable, but just needs more sources to be rescued. It's akin to saying that the "British" or "Swiss" or "Lebanese" or "Filipinos" do not exist because they form different "communities" or identifiable groups. I can't see any differnce between those and the Belgians, at least for this argument. Ipso facto a nationality that is documented exists, even if they argue that they might not be a nation, and it should be kept here because every moderately large nationality is per se notable. Is that enough Latin for you? In any case, the branding national myths and symbols is very complex. The Belgians' own identity is wrapped up in its flag, cuisine, and other brands and symbols, although I don't know if any research has directly addressed the "branding of the Belgium myth". Bearian (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the identity is vested solely in the nation, not a linguistic, ethnic, cultural or communal identity, then surely it makes sense to have the article on the nation in question? But wait, there already is an article on the 'Nation of Belgium' -- just as there is list of belgians listing notable individuals, and numerous other articles besides. So what topic exactly is this article on? Where else do we have an article on a 'national identity' separate from the article on the nation? Incidentally, British and Lebanese are disambiguation pages and Swiss redirects to Switzerland. Filipino redirects to Filipino people, which is explicitly "an ethnic group" (which 'Belgian' is not). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is anybody concerned that over 2/3 of the citations in the article are for statistics in the infoxbox? "Significant coverage"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree there is a distinct lack of significant coverage here, and I am surprised to see all the WP:SNOWs coming out without any substantial changes to the actual article. I still hold that the information here is not entirely different from what is currently in Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. Most of you are arguing that there are Belgians, and I am not one to disagree. The term may even be used in encyclopedias, but the information that would be encyclopaedic seems to fit well under Communities, regions and language areas of Belgium. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jethrobot (congrats -- it seems likely you will retain your name). It is not necessary that the references be in the article -- it is sufficient if they exist. That drives my !vote, and quite possibly those of other editors. It is true that at times editors mistakenly believe that the refs must be reflected in the article, but that is not the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where the main concern is WP:OR and overlap with existing articles, that refs exist outside the article is largely irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that notable Belgians don't exist, only that there is no notable topic for description here that is not already covered by Belgium (for the nation/national identity), list of belgians (for notable Belgians), Culture of Belgium, etc, etc. Such an argument cannot be rebutted by stating 'but there are refs about Belgians'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per RJH. Oreo Priest ^talk 08:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe people of Belgium and those near the country don't refer to themselves as "Belgians." Therefore, they shouldn't be referred to as Belgians. This is quite different than "Americans", because the people of the United States would in fact refer to themselves as Americans. Also, Belgium is a divided country (two different ethnic groups), so by referring to them simply as "Belgians", this just creates confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asanti6 (talk contribs) 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) — Asanti6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, so very wrong. Where did you attain this opinion from? Have you ever even visited the country or made acquaintances with Belgians? Veriss (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least the following Wikipedians self-identify as Belgians: Alexteclo · Angelicapple · Belgianatheist · Blakewiki · Boris Horemans · Cretanforever · Dgeleyn · Didier Misson · Farragutful · Fjoeri · FvdP · Gedeon · Gertjan R. · Kgeurts · Le Liegeois · Lebob · Lycaon · MasterA113 · Mercator · Nickdeclercq · Npettiaux · PHILTHEGUNNER60 · Pierre Bauduin · Pygenot · Random Nonsense · Rickus · Tiekenei · ZeFredz. But for this discussion it is more relevant whether reliable sources that discuss Belgians refer to them as "Belgians". The argument implies we should also not have articles with titles like List of Belgians, List of Belgian architects, etcetera. --Lambiam 15:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Warden. I reluctantly enter this debate only because the policy wonks seem to be flooding the discussion with multiple, repetitive comments and attacks and seem to know nothing of the peoples they comment on. Being an American who married into a Flemish family 25+ years ago, lived and worked in Walloonia for many years, and communicate regularly with Flemish, Walloon and Bruxellite friends, colleagues and family members living there, I can strongly attest to the fact that the residents of Belgium identify themselves as Belgian and refer to themselves as Belgian when their specific region of origin is not germane to the discussion. This is very similar to Texans, Californians, New Yorkers or Southerners generally identifying themselves as Americans unless their region of origin is important to a particular conversation. This article does need improvement but has been tag bombed so is probably discouraging less battle-hardened Wikipedians from contributing to it. Very Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demographics of Belgium per WP:V and WP:N. Our own opinion abut whether there are Belgians is not relevant. What matters is what the sources say. And it's not clear from the article that there are reliable published sources that describe the topic of a people called "Belgians". If such sources are added, even if they only say that there are no Belgians, the article should be retained. If not, a redirect is better than the current OR-filled, speculative stub. Sandstein 05:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partners for Democratic Change

[edit]

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

Isn't a chicken, but it tastes like chicken. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am also nominating Partners for Democratic Change International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion as part of this. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. This reads like an ad. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep. My concern has been addressed through Ikanreed (talk · contribs)'s mending of the article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix and keep. While the article quality is extremely low, using the source searches above, it's quite clear that there are a number of secondary sources that establish notability for the organization, with the most written about work being from the early 2000s.

Several news articles discussing particular efforts made by the partners for democratic change over a wide range of years, such as [12], and [13]
Several academic papers written in the area of international policy and diplomacy discussing work by the organization too, 2 of these require subscriptions so only google's summaries tell me anything about their relationship but, [14], [15], and [16] as fairly certain examples.
At least one published book exclusively about the subject: [17].

I think it's fairly clear that notability can be established here through reliable 3rd party sources, without any recentism bias. The only problem is the quality of the article as it stands is unacceptably low. i kan reed (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I've done some basic work finding reliable references for some of the more basic claims made in the article, along with adding an infobox. I left the empty sections alone under the assumption that the original author was still working on the article. i kan reed (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruairí O'Brien

[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP (tagged as such since January 2010) about an Irish architect. Yes, he is an architect and he has a couple of publications, but I couldn't find much significant coverage. There's a mention here that he developed an interactive micromuseum, and there's this about his involvement with the Erich Kaestner museum, but I didn't find much else. If these are enough for anyone to !vote keep, fair enough, but personally I'd like to see more coverage. Michig (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the nominator, sufficient coverage does not exist to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 08:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a couple of claims of notability, but I don't think this architect passes WP:ARTIST. Minima © (talk) 16:55, 1 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. Consensus is that the stations are not sufficiently similar to be properly discussed in a batch nomination. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

140th Street (MVTA station)

[edit]

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

These articles fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There's nothing notable about any of these bus stations (fail WP:GNG), and they shouldn't have their own articles. Slon02 (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion, for the same reasons:

Speedy Keep - Nonsensical batch nomination of topics about transit stations. Not only is it impossible to flesh out the notability of each individual station, but this list is all over the place; it's not only stations from different transit systems, but stations in different American states and even different countries. Those guidelines the nom throws up (WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING) don't apply at these are very discriminate topics and ironically, the nom choose to compile an indiscriminate list of unrelated topics for this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're all simply bus stations, and each one of them is completely not notable. Wikipedia isn't a transit guide, it's an encyclopedia. Having an article on every single bus stop in the world would no doubt crash the Wikipedia servers- we might as well have articles on park benches and lemonade stands. I challenge you to find at least one article from that bundle that is notable enough to exist. --Slon02 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm sure Wikipedia operators appreciate you concern for bandwidth, Wikipedia has in fact addressed this issue with the policy WP:NOTPAPER which states "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, or the total amount of content" and the Wikimedia essay linked to it specifically address the bandwidth issue.--Oakshade (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, Wikipedia is not paper. And that essay that you linked provides a very nice quote as well- "On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information, full of railroad timetables and comprehensive lists." The main argument here is notability, and quite frankly, individual bus stations are able as notable as dumpsters or park benches. There's a reason for why these articles are poorly sourced stubs. --Slon02 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjects does appear to pass WP:GNG, as there are very few google hits, when a search as conducted, and of those that were found none were significant or in depth. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of these are bus rapid transit stations or major terminals, not simply bus stops as the nominator seems to be arguing. Bus rapid transit, unlike a conventional bus route, generally has dedicated lanes and stations which are more like light rail stations than bus stops. Besides, notable or not, these articles should not all have been nominated together. The batch of articles includes both operating and planned bus rapid transit stations from multiple systems, intercity bus terminals, smaller bus stations, and even one station which appears to have rail connections, which are not similar enough to be judged categorically. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oakshade's argument is entirely persuasive. There's nothing wrong with batch nominations, as long as they're quite closely related. Subjects from different transit systems in different countries is not it.
That being said, it sure seems, looking over this day's AfDs, that the nominator has filed several on stations on bus rapid transit (BRT) lines. A glance at his contribution history, however, doesn't show that he's participated in any discussions as to the inherent notability of BRT stations. Why is that? I'm not normally a fan of WP:BEFORE - which is far more often used as a club by Keep proponents lacking any valid arguments than otherwise - but that would seem a prerequisite here. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 18:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As TheCatalyst brought up, these are not random bus stops, but major terminals. I am familiar with OC Transpo, and these are actual large stations; They aren't random sidewalk stops. "Pepper " 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This mass nomination is nothing more than a statement of deletion criteria devoid of supporting justification (WP:JNN). For example, how exactly does each article contravene WP:NOTEVERYTHING or WP:NOTGUIDE? And the only thing indiscriminate about all this is the random, diverse and extensive of mass nominations which cannot be properly assessed on individual merits. For the Ottawa/OC Transpo stations, note the keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunney's Pasture Station (OC Transpo), for example. Dl2000 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Transitway operated by OC Transpo in Ottawa is equivalent to the subway in other cities. The stations act as hubs for commuters and local bus services with bus rapid transit connecting on exclusive dedicated roadways from the suburbs into downtown and across the city. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of close United States presidential elections

[edit]

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

No notability established, no criteria for closeness, essentially no citations. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not really a relevant issue here, but "close" is arbitrary and undefined, and there have not yet been so many presidential elections that we need to discuss a subset of them only in a separate page. We already have the comprehensive and sortable List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin and List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin; this adds nothing to what those already cover and make clear, just as if we had List of countries with really big populations notwithstanding the comprehensive List of countries by population. postdlf (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Postdlf. Doesn't conform to WP:LIST. Nightw 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, what I meant by notability really overlapped with my 2nd point and what you're talking about. My point was just that even if you could figure out the closeness criteria there's no particular reason shown that this measure is better. And, as you said, there's already full lists of presidential elections by margin so this isn't a list that needs an arbitrary limiter to be accessible. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. Unencyclopedic & lacking reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this isn't needed for the reasons mentioned above. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frequencycast

[edit]

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

The article's subject fails to meet WP:N. Softdevusa (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet notability. The first reference is to a blog webpage which does not establish

While the article has five references so far, they are all incapable of evidencing notability. The first reference is to a blog page,it does not evidence notability. The following four references are to the own frequencycast.co.uk website which is not evidence of notability.

Searching for "Frequencycast" +podcast -blog -forum on Google Web returns the first few pages (of 20 results each) do not appear to contain coverage of the broadcast that can indicate notability. Searching for "Frequencycast" on Google News returns zero trivial/press release results. Softdevusa (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable podcast. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does appear to have won an award, however the article does not assert any other notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BiBi Jones

[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject actually can satisfy WP:PORNBIO or WP:ANYBIO. She started her career a few months ago, and appeared in only 9 movies... Cavarrone (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my original prod. Fails the GNG and all relevant SNGs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with mentioned rationales. Too soon. Coverage by RS is so trivial. History of article already shows a BLP nightmare. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. There aren't any major and reliable sources, obviously given that she's a porn star. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp: She is notable. She appeared in XBIZ and AVN News's reports for serveral times. Please read these websites BiBi Jones Lands Hot Video Magazine Cover,Digital Playground Ships ‘Babysitters 2’,Digital Playground, RogReviews Team Up for Caption Contest and Digital Playground Brings Back 'Babysitters' . Both XBIZ and AVN News are mainstream media in porn industry. Therefore, this article SATISFIES the WP:PORNBIO: Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.--Coekon (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no, mainstream as in non-pornographic media like tv shows, radio, movies, and music videos. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - SHE IS VERY BEAUTIFUL AND YOUR PORNOS EXCITING ME. 189.35.84.241 (talk) 16:06, 1 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. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of enemies in God of War

[edit]

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

Strong Delete - The article is a weak attempt at being a game guide, and not a very well written one at that. It is essentially subjective, opinionated commentary - and as such is WP:OR - best suited to a fan page (e.g. "Pandora's Guardian: A 20 foot tall undead Minotaur wearing nearly impenetrable armor. It guards the tomb of the Architect's son in the segment of the Temple of Pandora dedicated to Hades. It was placed there as a final test to anyone who had made it that far through the temple in an attempt to claim Pandora's Box. Kratos kills it by first chipping away its armor and then firing the ballista at it, impaling it to a door".)

It fails both WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO, and is certainly not encyclopedia standard. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let the page stay. You said start a fan page for it and this is what I had to come up with. Too bad we can't merge any enemy info with the God of War series page. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By your own admission it is a fan page. This is fine, but it is not suitable for Wikipedia. You need to create your own page and add the information there. Feel free to use the links posted above to examine guidelines if it helps you to understand why the article is inappropriate.

Thebladesofchaos (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page was already discussed and should have been redirected, but regardless, it was transwikied to StrategyWiki here. --I Jethrobot (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki as needs be and delete - Not encyclopedic. Far too much focus on a subject with no notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of God of War characters. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't merge as material is substandard to begin with and fails all the above mentioned tests. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A merge need not merge the entire corpus of the article being merged, it could just take a few lines condensed from the former article. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately I can't see anything worth keeping, not even " a few lines" as it is all fancruft. Best suited to a fan page elsewhere. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is not built from secondary sources, does not explain how the topic is notable, as is not in accordance with our guidelines for fiction (WP:V, WP:N, WP:WAF). re: transwiki, fan/game guide content already extensively written about at wikia. Marasmusine (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content is not appropriate for Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not a video game guide. The article doesn't provide references, so the text is original research by synthesis at best. There are no reliable secondary sources that cover this list to presume that it is appropriate per the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. The article does not provide reception or significance in the real world for the fictional characters so it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the list falls into what Wikipedia is not, it is not acceptable per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. There is not even a hint that it could possibly meet the general notability guideline. There is nothing worth merging since nothing is referenced. Jfgslo (talk) 02:17, 2 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. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books within the Discworld series

[edit]

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

An article of such monumental insignificance that it isn't even listed on the Discworld template. I forgot it existed until I discovered it was clogging up the Category:Discworld list with a bunch of redirects. If any article could be described as a list of useless trivia, this would be it. Serendi ^pod ous 12:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. I've heard it said that a weed is any plant out of place. Well, this is out of place. I'm sure there's a Discworld wiki or fansite that would benefit from this. It looks (through fan eyes) rather fun but it isn't appropriate here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Discworld & Pratchett Wiki. Agree with Ka Faraq Gatri, this is definitely out of place as fancruft, but the list may be better suited for a in-world specific wiki like the one above. I Jethrobot (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki These are generally not major fictional elements (like, oh, characters). Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of fictional books — most of it is there already. Ma^t_chups 01:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fancruft and original research does not become any less fancruft and original research because you put it into another extremely long ill-defined list substantially consisting of fancruft and original research. Transwiki is the better option, IMO. Personally, I think we need to look at transwiki'ing or deleting most if not all of Category:Lists of fictional books for the same reason. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With no verifiability due to the lack of references, the content is original research by synthesis at best. The content itself consists of a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reception, significance or even real-world context. Because of this, the list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Besides this, there are no reliable secondary sources that cover these fictional books to presume that they meet the general notability guideline or that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources to presume that it's appropriate per the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. This article is an unnecessary split of Discworld and an unneeded content fork. Also, the list falls into what what Wikipedia is not by being an indiscriminate collection of information, so I believe that it has no place in Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge, or transwiki and redirect. Afdcruft. With common senseverifiability due to the easily available references of the book series itself, the content is unoriginal research at best. The content itself could be improved with reception. Thus, the list meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Besides this, there are likely reliable secondary sources that cover these fictional books that figure into a major well-known series to presume that they meet the general notability guideline or that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources to presume that it is appropriate per the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. This article is a necessary split of Discworld and a needed content fork for those interested in this notable series. Also, the list falls into what Wikipedia is by being a discriminate collection of information, so I, the article's authors, and those who come here looking for this information believe that it has a place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.130 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and unsourced collection of information without real-world or even in-universe significance. Sandstein 05:25, 5 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic ideograms

[edit]

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

This is part of a range of new articles by the original poster which are steeped in Original Research and do not reflect scholarly consensus on the writing systems (or fictions) in question. The content of this article, if it had any validity, would belong at Old Turkic script. -- Evertype·✆ 20:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be mostly original research. As these so-called "Turkic ideograms" are identical to Old Turkic letters, any discussion of them, based on reliable sources, should be moved to Old Turkic script. BabelStone (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant WP:FRINGE nonsense. If this Gábor Hosszú has any notability as a crank author, create an article on the person. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: this article is based on the well-known facts. It collects the results of some scholars. These scholars have consensus that the Turkic ideograms have independent origin from the Aramaic script. There is not any new thing in this article. The value is that these results are collected into one article. Please, reconsider your position and do not delete this article. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Babelstone is right. -- Evertype·✆ 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the Turkic ideograms are in the Old Turkic script. It is correct. However, the are Turkic ideograms survived also in the Rovas scripts. This article collects the known results of researching the Turkic ideograms. All the relics of the Old Turkic script are from the 8th and 9th centuries. However, the Turkic ideograms are obviously earlier. The Turkic ideograms are sharply different from the majority of the Old Turkic letters, which are Aramaic-descendants. Consequently, this article collect valuable information. I emphasize: this article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Babelstone is still right. -- Evertype·✆ 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE. Vanisaac (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BabelStone. This article was essentially created here as a coatrack for the slew of other articles by the same editor relating to his dubious fringe research (and movement). Of the original 9 created, 5 have already been deleted via AfD. In addition to this one, 3 others are currently at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article (either its previous version, or its current version) contained valuable information about the titled topic. I simply removed the Carpathian Basin Rovas and Khazarian Rovas related remarks in order to avoid its deletion. However, what happen here is not ensuring the quality of the Wikipedia, but a completely different thing. I have no illusion: it will be deleted, despite of the fact that this contains only independent information with controllable references. This page fulfills the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alensha's arguments in the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Szarvas_Rovas_inscription should be considered in the case of this article as well, since the partly the same authors are referred in the both articles. However, in this article, there are several Russian authors, as well. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content of this article is not a theory. It is simply a collection of the well-known Turkic ideograms, which survived in the Old Turkic script and in the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas script. The article cannot tell the origin of the Turkic ideograms, since it is unknown. The reason of keeping this article individually is that only a small part of the Old Turkic symbols are non-Aramaic origin (these the ideograms); moreover, there are two Szekely-Hungarian symbols, which are also Turkic ideograms-based. Anyway, in the Carpathian Basin Rovas there are three and in the Khazarian Rovas there are four symbols, which can be identified as Turkic ideograms. If you are interested in it, you can see here: [[18]] -Rovasscript (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this article is not an alternative of the Old Turkic script. It simply focuses the Turkic ideograms, and their survival in different scripts. From the beginning, this article contained references to the article Old Turkic script. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:27, 3 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. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University Park Alliance

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Three years after prior AfD closed without consensus, remains non-notable local organization of extremely parochial interest. Orange Mike | Talk 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Akron, Ohio. Neutrality^talk 05:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rainbow (Mariah Carey album). Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valentines (EP)

[edit]

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

I'm surprised this hasn't been nominated before. Surely it fails notability? It doesn't even list any chart positions, which I thought was a must for a music related article to make it notable. What it is an EP of? Rainbow? If yes, then maybe it could merged with that article, as singles were still being released from Rainbow at the time of this release of Valentines. Calvin • ⁹⁹⁹ 22:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge with Rainbow - ~~I'm honestly not even sure what to do with this article. Its obviously not notable, and was only a limited and special release in conjunction with Wal-mart. I guess a simple delete is best.~~ I guess this is in fact best.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rainbow. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, didn't chart, no new songs or information. And I don't see why it would be merged with Rainbow as it has nothing to do with it. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rainbow (Mariah Carey album), where it is possible. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:15, 1 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. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Nip

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Recently made up neologism, no sources, fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - By the article's own text, it was recently thought up. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY; WP:MADEUP; WP:NEOLOGISM; 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per recently thought up above. Rwendland (talk) 10:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full Nip... I mean, delete, per above - frankie (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO Creator even admits it's a neologism--Breawycker (talk to me!) 01:12, 1 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azavar Technologies Corporation

[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. 2 gnews hits [19]. which are just 2 self published hits from prweb.com . looks like an WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising. Yet another website design and development consulting firm advertising on Wikipedia: In addition to creating websites, Azavar offers online marketing, software training, custom content management systems, and technology integration with existing infrastructures.... Azavar coined the term Webability in order to define their vision and differentiate their capabilities. According to Azavar, Webability is “the talent to achieve great results using the power of the web.....” Azavar uses web application development and integration, creative design, managed network services, strategic consulting and online marketing to help their clients increase web traffic, sales leads, customer loyalty, and online purchases. Azavar considers these achievements Webability..... When Azavar created “Webability” in 1996, it was one of the first references to achieving measurable results by harnessing the power of the web. Today, interactive marketing campaigns utilize the goals and tactics of Webability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing indicating notability.—Chowbok ☠ 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The gtest link above is too specific. I find this result fairly notable. Similarly a general google test indicates notability. This all goes along well with the many notable companies that they service. The article needs a lot of wikification, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your new gnews search reveals just more prweb.com results which is an unreliable source. A google search does not indicate notability as per WP:GHITS. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 27 June 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 Military campaigns of Julius Caesar. Anything not al ready there can be merged from the history if it is sourced. Sandstein 05:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of Julius Caesar

[edit]

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

Article simply replicates information on Military campaigns of Julius Caesar - merge been proposed since Sep 2010 but frankly this page is unnecessary and has no references to support claims such as 'Historians place the generalship of Julius Caesar (100 BC-44 BC) on the level of such geniuses as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Genghis Khan and Napoleon Bonaparte'. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Reichsfürst (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this article a spin off article of the main Julius Caesar article that was not properly tagged? Or is this article an unnecessary content fork from the main? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you just redirect it to the campaign article? That's quick and easy. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary content fork. And a merge discussion was started a while ago but nothing happened and frankly leaving this is going to confuse those who should be on Military campaigns of Julius Caesar so yeah a redirect would be good. Reichsfürst (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect Two other editors have suggested a redirect to Military campaigns of Julius Caesar, and that would be good. Furthermore, I am of the opinion anything not already within that article that is well referenced to reliable sources, should be merged into it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 28 June 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimbeswar Neog

[edit]

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

Non-notable. Insufficient sources. I tried to find additional sources, to no avail. I also asked the creator to do the same, but none were forthcoming. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the newly added sources, appears to meet GNG. Especially, I think the claim in the official encyclopedia of India's Sahitya Akademi which praises his contributions to Assamese literary criticism, shows that he was a notable individual in his field. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As nominator, I now change my mind. Thanks to those who have found refs and fixed up the article. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Newcomb's Tables of the Sun. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomb's formula

[edit]

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

This is a fork of Earth's rotation. It is also unreferenced and contains many errors. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a key formula used everywhere in the world, for astronomy and spacecraft operations. As opposed to many other Wikipedia articles under this category (category timekeeping etc) it contains no nonsense! For this latter matter, see for example the discussion of Year

Stamcose (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the article could be solved, but since the formula is an approximation to sidereal time, any mention of the formula belongs in that article, rather than devoting an entire article to one formula. Indeed, the Exact duration and its variation section in that article should be improved to show the most recent definition. A simpler approximation than Newcomb's formula is already in the "Sidereal time" article; whether Newcomb's formula ought to be included as an approximation intermediate between the one already in the article and the definitive version that can be found on pages B7–B9 of the Astronomical Almanac for the year 2011 (2010, published by the US Naval Observatory and the UK Hydrographic Office) is a matter for discussion at Talk:Sidereal time. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete those wishing to convince wikipedia at large need independent third party references, not complex logic. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with sidereal time. Not enough to qualify for a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 11:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on Google scholar and Google books search results, this is notable and it is not difficult to provide reliable sources. The formula is clearly of historical significance; the argument that in the 115 years that have since elapsed we have improved on it is irrelevant for its notability. There also appears to be enough material for expansion. --Lambiam 21:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC) (see below for my revised recommendation. --L.)[reply]
If enough references can be added, then keep, otherwise merge as per OxenX. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been called an ox, much less oxen, but I like the sound of it. :) Owen× ☎ 23:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Earth rotation angle and expand.
This identical formula appears in the Conventions document of several European Space Agency missions: [20] p.27, [21] p.51, [22] p.36, [23] p.29, etc. However, all of these documents call it the Greenwich sidereal angle within a section entitled Earth rotation angle obtained from GSA by adding a small nutation in longitude term. All mention the term Newcomb's formula in a historical sense: "The Greenwich sidereal angle moves with the daily rotation of the Earth and is calculated with the Newcomb's formula according to international conventions as a third order polynomial, ..." Newcomb's formula is too generic because it is used for at least four different formulas presented in Newcomb's Tables of the Sun [24] in, for example, the article [25]. IERS neglects the third order term, folds the small nutation in longitude term into the coefficient of T, and shifts the epoch from midnight to noon 2000 January 1, calling it the Earth rotation angle (ERA) in IERS Conventions (1996) p.76 (chapter 8), also see stellar angle on p.34 (chapter 5). The latest IERS Conventions (2010) only uses the term Earth rotation angle on p.52 (chapter 5). This appears in a slightly different form on page B8 of the 2011 Astronomical Almanac. It was developed in 1986 [26]. The concept of an angle is sufficiently different from a time to warrant a separate article. — Joe Kress (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the merits of the contents of the present article, I think the topic of Newcomb's formula is of considerable historic interest, and deserves to be treated in historical perspective (as opposed to merely listing somewhere the currently adopted formula as most recently determined by the IERS). I'm not an astronomer and I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the "original" Newcomb's formula was a formula for the right ascension of the mean Sun, and that other formulas dubbed "Newcomb's formula", such as for relating universal and sidereal time, are derived from it. I see many formulas in the article "Computing precise star co-ordinates" referred to above, but as I read it, only one is referred to as being Newcomb's formula, while other formulas are said to be computed by it. --Lambiam 08:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other astronomers provided formulas similar to Newcomb's. Newcomb's stand out as having been adopted by the entire astronomical community from the late 1800's through 1983. They might or might not stand out for the number and time span of observations used in the calculations; I'm not qualified to say anything about that. So if there were to be an article about Newcomb's formula(s) the article would need to explain what distinguishes Newcomb's from earlier equations of the same form.

By the way, no one is suggesting the technical Wikipedia procedure that prevents an article named "Newcomb's formula" from being created in the future. A possible course of action is to delete it for now and hope someone with sufficient interest will create a suitable article in the future. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article "Computing precise star co-ordinates" is only mentioned by Lambian, so I can't tell which one it is. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the article found at this link, given as an example above by Joe Kress. --Lambiam 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the history of this formula should be included in the expanded article, including all of its historical forms, both its original form by Newcomb (whatever formula that was) as well as its Greenwich sidereal angle form prior to the advent of the Earth rotation angle. — Joe Kress (talk) 18:10, 28 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, J04n(talk page) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not even a month old. It does need citations, it should have a stub tag and of course, if there really are errors they should be fixed). I don't see what is the rush. It's not hurting Wikipedia by being there. Give it some time. If you still think it's all that bad after a few months, resubmit to AFD. I concur with the conclusion below based on the new information given. --TimL (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and merge. The Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris (1961) gives this formula on page 75:

G.M.S.T. of 0^h U.T. = 6^h 38^m 45.836^s + 86 40184.542^sT_U + 0.0929^sT_U²

where "T_U is the number of Julian centuries of 36525 days of universal time elapsed since the epoch of Greenwich mean noon (regarded as 12^h) on 1900 January 0."

If this is restated for t_U (days rather than centuries) and stated in degrees rather than time it becomes

G.M.S.T. of 0^h U.T. = 99.690983° + 0.9856473354° T_U + 2.90°×10⁻¹³ T_U²

This formula is clearly related to the formula in the article. The difference in the constant term is expected due to different epochs. The reduction by about 360° in the linear term is because this formula is only valid at noon. ~~I can't explain the difference in the power of ten for the quadratic term~~. The power of 10 I calculated for the quadratic term coefficient nearly agrees with the European Space Agency documents cited by Joe Kress, and disagrees with the article. The formula in the Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris is exactly the same as the formula in Newcomb's Tables of the Sun for mean solar time, except 12 hours have been subtracted from the constant term and the subscript "U" has been added to T. Newcomb's formula for mean solar time has also been reproduced in Explanatory Supplement to the Ephemeris. So I would suggest the original form of the formula be merged to Newcomb's Tables of the Sun and any refinements in the formula that are noteworthy be placed in Sidereal time. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Newcomb's Tables of the Sun per Jc3s5h – while referring to Sidereal time for updates. --Lambiam 22:28, 1 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. v/r - T P 20:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taieb Znati

[edit]

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

Non notable academic page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, research gives no indication of importance. No reliable secondary sources can be found, all sources seem to be roll call for academic conferences or links to personal or university web pages. There is not enough evidence to justify an encyclopedia article. OhYeah098765 (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete As original article creator, I agree it is not notable and should be deleted as per guideline A7 of WP:SPEEDY. Page was created in a time before I fully grasped WP:GNG and should be removed. It is not encyclopedic in nature. Eternalmonkey (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the citation record is good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are we to create pages for every professor with a decent citation records? Why not document the truly notable ones who have exposure outside their field or broad exposure within their field to wikipedia and omit the others. Eternalmonkey (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. GS h index of 17 in a highly cited area and with many co-authors may just pass WP:Prof#C1, plus some appointments. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Appointments are for government bureaucratic positions and chairs of conferences. This information is appropriate for a personal or faculty webpage and not wikipedia. This information is readily available there. Is wikipedia a repository for faculty pages? I do not think it should be treated as such. Those in this very specific field are certainly more than capable enough to access all this information without resorting to this encyclopedia. It just does not seem encyclopedic in nature. Eternalmonkey (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Academic Afds are determined on the basis of the Wikipedia policies WP:Prof and WP:GNG. If you want to change these policies please debate them on the policy pages, not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~keep Although I agree completely with Xxanthippe about the applicability here of WP:PROF, I don't think Znati meets C1 yet. GS is very unreliable for citation analysis. The Web of Science is more reliable, although admittedly undercounts in fields like computer science. Nevertheless, WoS lists 82 publications for "Znati T", none of which has been cited more than 10 times, with a total citation count of 78 and an h-index of 5. David Eppstein may have access to more appropriate databases for this field and perhaps his !vote was based on results from a search there. --Crusio (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) based on David Eppstein's comment below, despite the huge unreliability of GS... --Crusio (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF specifically warns against using Web of Science for computer scientists (based on the advice of professional societies in the area) because of its poor coverage of conference publications. Google Scholar may be unreliable but in this field it is less unreliable than all of the alternatives. In Google Scholar, I'm seeing cite counts of 597 ("A mobility-based framework"), 212 ("A path availability model"), 194 ("Wireless sensor networks" Springer 2004), 152 ("Wireless sensor networks", Wiley 2007), 109 ("Predictive mobility support"), and then 68, 59, 47, 38, 33, etc., and an h-index of 17. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 25 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, J04n(talk page) 09:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kataine

[edit]

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

No notability established. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Nymf _hideliho! 09:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references Softdevusa (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because she has a IAFD and IMDb page doesn't mean she should have a Wikipedia page, especially with little sources. SwisterTwister talk 22:19, 29 June 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 by WP:SNOW. Article was also on the front page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baconnaise

[edit]

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

Advertising. While "Baconnise" has all the Wikipedic bells and whistles, it's a slim entry puffed up with unrelated material about the company itself and celebrity anecdotes. The article reads like a promotional piece for the product. Alternative: trim to a brief few sentences and merge with Mayonnaise. MonicaDerm (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Odd - this article made it through the DYK process. MonicaDerm created her account today and has made one contribution - this AFD (see this). I'm looking for a speedy close here under WP:SNOW. Shem (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The product is notable enough, having appeared on major shows. The mere fact that this is a commercial product is no reason for deletion. The article is sufficiently encyclopedic, well sourced, with legitimate references, hardly an advertisement. I find the AfD groundless. Freederick (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The product has had enough media exposure to meet all the notability criteria. McMarcoP (talk) 10:19, 27 June 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 redirect to A∞-operad. (non-admin closure) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A∞-algebra

[edit]

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

Mathematical categorical term with a single sentence description and one example. Sources include slides from a CRNS conference, math forum discussions, and something unclear called Hochschild cohomology and A-infinity deformations which looked like a journal article, but I was unable to find it under Google Scholar. Current sources are insufficient because they do not demonstrate notability of the term. Recommend delete because WP:NOTDICTIONARY and per not being able to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable secondary sources. --I Jethrobot (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedily redirected this to A∞-operad per CSD A10. Additionally, the author requested deletion on the talk page citing the duplication. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:00, 27 June 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 Snow keep, and the article has been significantly expanded since the initial nomination. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Las Conchas Fire

[edit]

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

One line..... KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ due to poor nomination that should be rejected. An article being one line is not a reason to delete within policy and for that reason I prefer to keep even though alternative nominations might have been possible for this article. Fæ (talk) 06:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep based on the developing story and growth in sources in addition to my original opinion. Fæ (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Did the nominator even google this topic? There's lots of footnotes available. Witty Lama 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now over 43,000 acres [27] ~NerdyScienceDude 15:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination does not give a valid reason for deletion. Both the number of acres burned and the threat to Los Alamos Lab separately provide notability. There are more than enough reliable sources. Superm401 - Talk 16:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nominating for Deletion 1 minute after the article is creates is not an appropriate usage of the policies. Please re-read WP:NPP as tagging so soon for AfD is extremeley BITEy. Story is developing and has various sources. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep Who the hell nominated this for deletion? This is a pretty big wildfire and it's ongoing. Makes no sense to delete whatsoever! WTF? (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it's an obvious keep now, the original article had only the following line: "Add information here about the Las Conchas Fire that started in New Mexico on June 26th 2011." I nominated that for CSD myself but Fae graciously fixed the article. N^oformation ^Talk 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand that not all wildfires or other natural disasters are of note, this fire, which is still being investigated, has the distinct possibility of affecting at least the outlying areas of a U.S. federal laboratory where nuclear and other vital research is being conducted and that is a famous nuclear test site, and this fire (which has the potential to be the largest or one of the largest in New Mexico history- certainly recent history) is likely currently being followed by all of the major U.S. news media (CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, the AP); not to mention the fact that at least 20,000 people live in the area and that almost 15,000 (lab-based) jobs and numerous homes and businesses are at stake, even though there thankfully have been no casualties reported in the area as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.1 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the AFD nomination is hardly relevant to the current state of the article; I agree on notability as above. -- stillnotelf is invisible 13:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Complete no-brainer. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On a par with Cerro Grande. --Jnik (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They've evacuated Los Alamos. That makes it notable enough for me. asmeurer (talk | contribs) 22:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article has been developed significantly since the nomination. This is _the_ top story on almost all major news outlets in the United States. I would say that is enough notability to give this article a chance to be developed more. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should keep this article because it is making history. This fire that is going on is bigger than the Cerro Grande Fire, and Wikipedia has still kept that page. So please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.16.5 (talk • contribs)

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 subject certainly appears to meet our standards; thanks to User:Phil Bridger for providing confirmation that the sources are all talking about the same chappy, delete !votes based on the "he doesn't pass WP:BIO" concerns are mooted. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmud

[edit]

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

Wide search found no references at all apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Philafrenzy (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references in the article Softdevusa (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have reached the rank of air commodore. Since this is a general officer-equivalent rank he meets the requirements of WP:SOLDIER, which while not official is a good indicator of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But without any verifiable sources there is no evidence anything in the article is even true. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What like this do you mean? Took me thirty seconds! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, how do you know it is the same man? I will grant you it may be, but the year of birth is different and I think that combination of names is not that unusual in Pakistan/India? If there are reliable sources to verify rank and ambassador status then I am all in favour of keeping the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He also appears to have been an ambassador/diplomat. Mar4d (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:V & WP:N. no citations to RS that provide any info that the air commodore and diplomat were the same person. even the solitary reference from database of IAF officers provided by Necrothesp does not establish notability. Zafar Mahmud is a common enough name in the subcontinent. Also this is a WP:BLP where standards are higher--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This confirms that the Zafar Mahmud who assisted the Hamoodur Rehman Commission, as described in our article, was an air commodore. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two references appear to relate to the correct person and provide evidence of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:59, 1 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. Non admin closure Edgepedia (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries without rivers

[edit]

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

Is this useful or patent nonsense? All items listed are, of course, tiny nations, but do we really need a list for this? Regardless, it's completely unreferenced and largely unread. Nightw 05:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has a lack of reliable citiations, but if it is factually accurate, it's just the sort of thing that Wikipedia excels at: easily accessible and exhaustive data on arcane topics. - Davodd (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it's factually accurate. A river is defined as any natural watercourse flowing into a body of water. Even the smallest island nation will have a water source flowing into the ocean. Nightw 08:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did the research for this using Geonet as the source, islands without any natural watercourses are actually not all that rare. The purpose of the article was to eliminate the permanent red links on the various "lists of rivers" templates. Kmusser (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note the article did have a reference until the nominator relabeled it as an external link. Geonet is a U.S. government database, I don't see any reason to consider it unreliable. Kmusser (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For that, please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. A link to the homepage of a website (with no information related to the content of the article) is not, in any way, a reference. The source is reliable, but the specific page linked to contains no information related to this subject. Is there a more specific link? Nightw 11:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source is the database, not the webpage - I'm not sure how cite a database query with the currently available citation tags. Kmusser (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to quickly find supporting citations online for all but two of the countries just by searching "[countryname]" + "rivers".[28] All of the sources I found are very unequivocal in stating that those countries have no rivers (ex: Tuvalu, in the CIA World Factbook: "since there are no streams or rivers and groundwater is not potable, most water needs must be met by catchment systems with storage facilities.")[29] I think it's true of Monaco as well but have not yet found a clear source on that, and I think it may not be true of Tonga, but was again unable to confirm quickly. I still haven't searched for most of the dependencies. postdlf (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now those are references. I still think it's a nonsense list that should probably eventually be redirected to a water resources by country article, but I appreciate the effort you've taken, so I'll withdraw the nomination. Nightw 07:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Nightw 07:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as hoax. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 08:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supershow (TV series)

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Probable hoax. Not mentioned in reliable sources. Searches only point to home-made YouTube videos. Bluemask (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. -WayKurat (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 08:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see only 6 ghits for "supershow" "sarah lawas", looks like a hoax. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to confirm the notability (or reality) of this show PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Filipino TV cruft, but this time this one doesn't seem real at all. They can't even remember if it premiered in 2010 or 2011 going by the infobox and article text. Nate • (chatter) 05:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Moray An Par (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Rice

[edit]

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

What's next, Mr. Smith? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are unlikeley to mistake the 2 subjects of this disambiguation page.Hasteur (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art of War 14

[edit]

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

Not a notable event. Routine sports coverage for a regional promotion. Event was headlined by a fighter whose primary claim to "fame" was being a TUF alumni. Five of the twelve events ended in a draw and one ended in a no-contest after the cage broke. Only event out of 15 events by this promotion that has a dedicated page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think some more sources could be used but this is not an unknown MMA event. There are plenty of fighters there who have experienced top flight mma or kickboxing e.g. Rolles Gracie (of the famous Gracie family), Peter Graham and Rodney Glunder (K-1). While this event is not as big as some, smaller events have a big role to play in the development of fighters - just because it's not the UFC doesn't make it not worthwhile. Some fighters end up outside the bigger promotions and work there way back while others are up and coming stars of the future. I think getting rid of pages on the basis that there are not as notable is incorrect and makes wikipedia less informative rather than more so. Also as it is a series of events I believe the creator has room to create more pages so it is not so unotable that there was one event and then it was all over jsmith006 (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2011

I'm not claiming that the events of smaller promotions aren't worthwhile or even that this event is "unknown." I'm just suggesting that it doesn't meet general notability guidelines or MMANOT. Information about fight outcomes is readily accessible on Sherdog and related sites for interested parties. Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of all information. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 00:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to simply be routine reporting of sports results. Jakejr (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event at all. If this is on here then we might as well put all the small regional events with "known" fighters on the card. Wikipedia isn't a sports page. Jahahn (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the promotion has enough clout to bring in named fighters and manages to put on a series of shows then with the correct sources then why shouldn't it be allowed a page. I agree if the event has no notable fighters and is in the back of a bar or alley somethere then I agree there shouldn't be a page. I also believe that wikipedia is a place where people can find out information so what we have here is information even if it is a "sports page". I would like to see the page creator add more pages to the series so it is even more thorough - who knows maybe some of these guys may be on the UFC cards one day and I'd like to be able to use wikipedia to check their early fights not log out and go into Sherdog. jsmith006 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2011

Event pages exist for top-tier organizations, as well as some second-tier organizations (as judged by WikiProject MMA participants). You are certainly invited to make a case for including AOW as a second-tier org on the project talk page. Lack of recognition as such, though, will likely continue to be a criteria supporting deletion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - nice to be able to discuss this in a rational manner - sometimes it seems things just get nominated for deletion with a (complete) lack of understanding of the sport/style in question. Although I'd rather that the author was given more of a chance to improve on the article rather than a deletion tag being put on it especially when alot of hard work goes into it. jsmith006 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2011

Delete I found nothing to show this event was notable. I think you can make a case for the promotion, but not this individual event. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Escusa

[edit]

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

No significant coverage that may establish notability. Only reliable coverage that I found was his articles against smoking. Of course, it's dubious if these have any significance. Moray An Par (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A perfunctory search found references to Escusa in 3 of the Philippines' major daily newspapers: the Manila Bulletin: [30]; The Philippine Star: [31]; and The Inquirer.smjwalsh (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are only passing mentions, and gives nothing about the subject. Moray An Par (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; No significant coverage from reliable sources found, as stated in WP:GNG. Does not appear to pass WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). –MuZemike 05:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HIV infection and posttraumatic stress disorder

[edit]

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

Delete or Merge − Far too little information in the article to support an out right article; I suggest a merge with the HIV article. Also nowhere near enough research conducted in this area. There seems to be an element of original research here, and it goes against WP:NOT PAPERS: even if the one cited article does support the the article, the article is simple reporting research findings. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Seriously, this issue is basically unknown, and seems to be a push by the author for the same ideas in several articles. I had to revert one their edits to HIV, along the same lines. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly WP:OR, and not enough independent secondary material to make a truly encyclopedic article. Yobol (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 02:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lilakai Julian Neil

[edit]

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

Delete − Subject does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN.

1. She did not hold "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office." She was a member of a tribal council that had some limited, devolved powers over a reservation.

− That fails Criterion 1.

2. She was not the mayor of a city or a member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Neither can I find a single hit on Google.

− That fails Criterion 2.

Therefore she fails WP:POLITICIAN. Moreover, as it says: "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." — Fly by Night (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was an elected member of the Navajo Nation Council the legislative body of the now 175,000 members of the Navajo Nation, a group whose large territory extends into three states. Rather than being "limited", the Navajo Nation Council has powers greater than many city councils, and the semi-autonomous government of the Navajo Nation has its own executive, legislative and judicial branches, as well as a police force with roughly 650 employees. Accordingly, the Navajo Nation Council is equivalent to the "council of a major metropolitan city". Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lack of Google hits, this was a person whose political career peaked in 1946, and she was active in a culture that did not have English as its first language. The article has a book reference, and her life is described on an Adventist website. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Cullen328 is spot on. The legal status of Native American tribal areas has been and is confusing: they are defined as sovereign entities and have powers that supercede state powers for many legal matters; they have been recognized by the US Federal govenment as having the status of a nation to the degree that the US has signed treaties with these entities. The Navajo Nation, for which the Navajo Tribal Council is the legislative branch of their government, has a status in most ways comparable to that of a state of the United States of America and in some ways comparable to a nation which is independent of the US. There is ample precedent in WP for mention of members of the Navajo Tribal Council - see Edward T. Begay. Regarding Google results, Lilakai Neil is listed under her full name and under her nickname "Lily Neil" (not to be confused with the modern Harpist.) Author of article --Grapeguy (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Further to the issue of citations and contributions, review the additions to the article. --Grapeguy (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 June 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. While there's some consensus, these need to be relisted individually. I'm treating each remaining article as a keep - feel free to relist them at your leisure. m.o.p 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bramalea (Züm Queen)

[edit]

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

These articles fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There's nothing notable about any of these bus stations, and they shouldn't have their own articles. Slon02 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related bus articles for deletion for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as a failure of WP:GNG as well as the argument advanced by the nominator. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to delete this, then you must also delete all articles about subway stations in all cities that have them such as New York City, London Underground, and the TTC because each station in those systems is not notable and they are rapid transit stations, right? But if you don't agree with that, then keep all of them. (Singh001175 (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- While this argument is appreciated, please remember that this rationale is not applicable to anything on Wikipedia. No two things will ever be the same, regardless of categorization - judge them based on their individual failings or achievements, not on the fact that there are a bunch of other similar things that are still around. m.o.p 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about NYC, London, or any other place else besides the above stations. WP:ALLORNOTHING is generally not a valid argument in AfD. Also, Whether articles already exist in Wikipedia has no bearing on this set of articles. --I Jethrobot (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a significant difference between subways and other forms of rapid transit. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally... but this is an exceptional case because the definition of a BRT is really vague. BRT stations could range from a normal bus stop to a subway-station like design. If these are to be deleted, then it is valid to say that all articles pertaining to rapid transit stations all around the world have to be deleted. (Singh001175 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

While this argument is appreciated, please remember that this rationale is not applicable to anything on Wikipedia. No two things will ever be the same, regardless of categorization - judge them based on their individual failings or achievements, not on the fact that there are a bunch of other similar things that are still around. m.o.p 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, with regards to the VIVA stations, they've survived as articles since 2005. They've been highly visible all that time, no one was hiding them, but no one took offence to their existence after 2006 at the latest. Why can't they at least have immunity from this AfD? -- Zanimum (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article has immunity from AFD - you could start an AfD for Jimbo Wales if you wanted to. Article age is never a factor.

Comments

(1) My creation of Züm station stop articles, that started this witch hunt, have been deleted. There really was not enough individual information that could not be included in the main Züm Queen article.

(2) Please be comprehensive and nominate all of the Viva stations here. There is not much point in randomly selecting a few for deletion and leaving a disjointed series of articles behind. If you are serious about this you must go all the way. I think that "all or nothing" is a valid argument in this case, because the reasons to delete or retain these few will apply to most of the others in the Viva system. Exceptions can be dealt with individually.

(3) Bus Terminals should not be incuded as they are not curbside bus stops, but are substantial off-street facilities with numerous platforms and other amenities such as information booths, ticket offices, waiting rooms and toilets. You know what a bus station looks like. Their inclusion here only confuses matters and might delay a quick conclusion. I request that you remove Shoppers World Terminal, Downtown Brampton Terminal and Bramalea Terminal from this nomination.

It should be noted that I have contributed to many Viva station articles in the past, frankly because they were rather weak, but they are really only fancy bus stops. These are not comparable in any way to the structure of a bus, railway, metro or subway station or real BRT stations along a dedicated roadway. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These aren't just bus stops but rapid transit way stations on dedicated right-of-ways like Boston's Silver Line, very much in the same sense as rail stations. This batch nomination is way too big for for an AfD with an unmanageable amount of possible opinion combinations. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply as the topic of transitway stations are very discriminate and not a "Plot-only description of fictional works," a "lyrics database" or an "excessive listing of statistics" which are what WP:INDISCRIMINATE forbids and there is nothing about WP:NOTGUIDE which applies to transitway stations. And some of these, like Downtown Brampton Terminal are in fact not only transitway stations, but transportation hubs serving an entire region. --Oakshade (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, but the rest, no. This is because bus terminals connect (or are planned to connect) to rail transit (LRT, commuter rail, etc.). Downtown Brampton Terminal itself connects to a commuter rail line and is a regional hub, which can stay, while Bramalea Terminal is the busiest terminal in Brampton, which can merge with Bramalea City Centre. Shoppers World Terminal can also merge with Shoppers World Brampton. York University must stay as well as it is a regional bus terminal. This will also connect to a subway line extension which is under construction. The rest can go. (Singh001175 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment, I've just significantly expanded the Shoppers World Terminal and Bramalea Terminal articles, to the point where Bramalea's especially would be nearing impractical to merge with the mall's article. The Downtown terminal can be similarly expanded, once the AfD is over. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge I would suggest:
- keep each transit terminal, as all serve 2 or more transit systems,
- Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA) be kept, because of its relevance to Vaughan Corporate Centre (TTC), under which it would be the final stop of the subway expansion,
- the VIVA stops be kept, or at least merged into Viva Orange. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shoppers World Terminal, Downtown Brampton Terminal, Bramalea Terminal and York University (YRT) as they are all terminals or significant transfer points (multiple platforms). Delete Kipling (VIVA), Islington (VIVA), Martin Grove (VIVA), Pine Valley (VIVA), Ansley Grove (VIVA), Weston (VIVA), Vaughan Corporate Ctr. (VIVA), and Interchange Way (VIVA) as they are all single curbside bus stops. PK T(alk) 23:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - many are notable; others may not be. It is not possible to have a coherent discussion on such a mass nomination. No prejudice to individual relisting if wanted. TerriersFan (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The good ones are referenced and verifiable, and with some work the others should be as well. - SimonP (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhoundz

[edit]

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

No significant independent third-party coverage that may suggest notability. Searching for news sources failed. Moray An Par (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Moray An Par (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it impossible to believe that the nominator did not see those potential sources at the Google news link. This is an in-depth source. –H T D 02:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I didn't see any in Google News. Well, regardless, is a single news article enough to claim notability? The news article is not even about the band. It's just a passing mention for members of the news article topic who are also members of the Greyhoundz. "says bassist Avenido, who also plays with rap-metal progenitors the Greyhoundz." and "Niño is also bassist with the Greyhoundz". are the only mentions of the band so I don't see how this article is "in-depth". Moray An Par (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's been nominating articles for deletion, I'm surprised you haven't clicked the Google News link on the "Find sources" section. The link you provided, laughingly, is only "for recent news." Anyway, this satisfies WP:BAND anyway -- it had been on rotation on NU 107, has released two or more albums on a major label (Sony Music Philippines is a major level in the Philippines), etc., as per Billboard magazine. –H T D 04:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they gave the same results. Well, I'm withdrawing this nomination. Moray An Par (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus seems to be that there is only one reliable source GNG requires more then 1. This is clearly borderline so I'll specificlly allow recreation if n additional source is found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary (software project)

[edit]

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

The article has promotional character, and much of its content merely promotes the organization and its applications: “A unique aspect of elementary OS is it's dedication to native GTK+ applications”.

It also has subjective phrases, based on feelings: “[...] therefore the OS is perceived to be much faster than Ubuntu upon which it's built”, as well as a list of applications created by the group (WP:NOTDIR 8) and future apps (WP:SPECULATION 5).

The “influence on Open Source” indeed it is? They just created a popular icon theme and created hype! The tone of the article’s text just disturbs me, it’s not appropiate for the encyclopedia, seems to rely on that used in OMG!Ubuntu. —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 27 June, 2011 [02:14] 02:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is free open source software (an OS actually) so there is no commercial interest behind this article. It's also actively edited and well referenced. If the tone disturbs you, edit it but don't delete :-) DeVerm (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just because there is no commercial interest doesn't mean it still can't be promotional. See #5 of WP: NOTPROMOTION. --I Jethrobot (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a fair amount of free software sells support contracts, especially Linux distros. Just because the software is free is no entitlement to include it in Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are problems with the article but the subject is notable. It is notable enough to get a rather critical review in Linux User, a printed Linux magazine in the UK, and a few independent Linux blogs. The tone and subjective phrasing can be fixed by clicking the "edit" button and rewriting the article. As for the fact that the project originated as an icon theme–so? Flickr originated as a bizarre online game, Java started as a language to write embedded systems and Microsoft started to sell BASIC. What things go on to become aren't defined by their origins. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References originate from multiple places, all of which are unreliable secondary sources and do not show notability:

OMGubuntu is a blog. Although it does focus exclusively on Ubuntu content, it is not a reliable third-party source of reporting.
Launchpad is a place where registered users can upload content and other users can report bugs. It shows that Elementary software exists, but it is user-generated content not a reliable third-party source for notability.
DeviantArt was used to provide screenshots of software. Again, not usable for notability.
Elementary's own website, and other wikis, because they are user-generated content.
Tech Drive-in which gives some details about the software and is a how-to guide for installation. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. --I Jethrobot (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Besides the 700 word article in linuxuser.co.uk is there another independent in-depth coverage of this? Major Linux distributions tend to generate a lot of press: books, reviews for every release, etc. A single article is rather meager coverage in this field. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbuntu. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 2 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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine Hat Cubs

[edit]

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

Delete − This article is about a junior ice hockey team. The criteria for notability is given by WP:ORG. The primary criteria is that the team "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." As the article stands, the only references are the club's own website (primary), the league's website (secondary, but non-independent) and the league cup's website (secondary, but non-independent). There is no evidence of any independent press coverage. I can't find any relevant or substantial Google hits either. The only relevent one says that "The Medicine Hat Club Cafe Tigers were a junior team that lost the semi final in the 1935-36 Alberta Junior Playoffs." They certainly don't meet any sporting criteria: they're not professional or national. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − Minor hockey team. Hockey is big in canada and the way they create skill-level hierarchies is by creating many different leagues with lower and higher skill with players selected for such criteria. This is a non notable team and such sporting leagues and teams in such leagues are not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − This is a Canadian Junior "B" Ice Hockey team, that needs to stay up! It doesn't make sense why just this one article might be deleted, but all the other Junior "A", "B", and "C" Ice Hockey teams stay up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuckGhostriderTPB (talk • contribs) 22:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the all or nothing argument should be avoided in deletion discussions. Each article's deletion discussion should be dealt with in isolation. It may be the case that other similar articles also need to be reviewed; but that has no relevance to this article's discussion. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor team is not notable enough to have its own page. It would be better to merge it under Canadian Hockey or something along those lines.--Carnold30 (talk) 19:22, 4 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 Delete (G7). Article deleted by Athaenara. (Non-admin closure) — Fly by Night (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 50 (Züm Queen)

[edit]

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

Delete − There is nothing noval or notable about this bus station. This article fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a public transport reference. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why this one? There are hundreds of BRT stations already here. Martin Morin (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So then they should go too. I couldn't seem to find any policy about bus stops being notable. Google Maps has over 400,000 bus stops in the UK alone. Imagine how many there are in the world. At a very conservative estimate, if we added one for every bus stop in the world then Wikipedia would have over three bus stop articles per non-bus-stop-article. Think about it. (I also notice that you are the article's creator.) — Fly by Night (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't merely a bus stop, it's a rapid transit stop. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is. It's just that the bus skips a few stops. An article on the system for the city might be a nice idea, but not on every stop; unless of course for the stops that are notable for some extra ordinary design feature or the location of a famous event. But it really is going to take something for a bus stop to deserve an article. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all of Fly by Night's arguments.Curb Chain (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, beyond their own relevance to transit fans and researchers, rapid transit stop help highlight population densities within a city, the patterns of settlement. Take a look at a city's transit routes over the years, and at least in Brampton, you'll see a very clear story of development patterns and priorities. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and that's why the entire system will probably deserve an article, but not each and every stop. — Fly by Night (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and concentrate on the system, not the stops. Imzadi 1979 → 02:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to delete this, then you must also delete all articles about subway stations in all cities that have them such as New York City, London Underground, and the TTC because each station in those systems is not notable and they are rapid transit stations, right? But if you don't agree with that, then keep all of them. (Singh001175 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This is not about NYC, London, or any other place else besides the above stations. WP:ALLORNOTHING is generally not a valid argument in AfD. Also, Whether articles already exist in Wikipedia has no bearing on this set of articles. --I Jethrobot (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally... but this is an exceptional case because the definition of a BRT is really vague. BRT stations could range from a normal bus stop to a subway-station like design. If these are to be deleted, then it is valid to say that all articles pertaining to rapid transit stations all around the world have to be deleted. (Singh001175 (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I tried to help other user who has deleted his Zum articles. I will delete this. Martin Morin (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per ((db-g7)), sole author's request. – Athaenara ✉ 20:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketeer Rollers

[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable "league": "league is made up of one interleague team"! Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 22 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the world of roller derby, "leauge" is used to describe any and all the teams that the business has. For small leagues, it is often just one team; whereas larger cities have multiple teams under their league. Note, that while right now, there is only one team, there is room to expand and have multiple teams that will still fall under the same league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukie19 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - That's all speculative, and falls under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING, neither of which is a valid argument for retention. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this has been overlooked in other Roller Derby League pages, i.e. Hellions of Troy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellions_of_Troy) and Sheffield Steel Rollergirls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Steel_Rollergirls) where they use the term League but do not identify any specific team or even use the word Team. So is the issue that we use both terms in our post? If we reword our page to only identify our overall League this will avoid confusion and avoid any forecasting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIfiveOh (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC) — HIfiveOh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

reply who is "we"? Anyway, that's addressing the symptom, not the problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "league" in roller derby is interchangable with "team." It's used to include not just the skaters on the bouting roster, but all the volunteers and officials that make the game (and team) possible. It includes those that are not on the bouting roster, which there is a significant amount. Derbylady (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC) "We" are referees, non-skating officials, volunteers, bouting skaters, freshmeat, trainers and coaches. Derbylady (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- DL, I was asking who the "we" was in HIfive's post. Is that account being used by more than one person, or is HIfive speaking as a person with a vested interest in the Rollers? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews, no third party sources. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I used the term "We" to mean the members of the league - officials, referees, skaters, etc. This is my own (unshared) account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.61.68 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Wrestling Federation

[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. all the sources provided are not third party. main stream coverage is very limited [32]. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Urban Wrestling Federation just had a US-national Pay Per View event that was advertised on channels such as ESPN. How is this up for deletion?! www.urbanwrestlingfederation.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.103.91 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of the many articles deserving deletion from Wikipedia, this is not one of them. This article needs updated horribly, but as a fairly new group I think their publicists are doing a very good job. They have a clothing deal with JSR Merchandising (who handle Pink Floyd, Janet Jackson, Cartoon Network), National Pay-Per-View broadcasts on inDEMAND, DirectTV and DISH Network. They held their first show in the Hammerstein Ballroom in NYC with tickets for their next shows on sale now through Ticketmaster. They are running advertisements on nationwide stations like ESPN and MTV2. Add to all this the fact that they have a talent pool that's pretty bona fide on not only the Pro Wrestling Circuits but the Hip Hop circuit as well and I'm really surprised this is up for deletion at all. Even Googling "Urban Wrestling Federation" (with quotes) brings up over half a million hits.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.28.31 (talk) — 222.152.28.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. "I think their publicists are doing a very good job" is not an argument for keeping, nor is running TV advertisements. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the only complaints are "main stream coverage is very limited", and "all the sources provided are not third party", the publicists job and the advertisements sure do mean something. In fact, I believe they would mean everything. Either way this is a Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.28.31 (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let them put on some events, get some coverage, not use Wikipedia as a PR tool, and then we'll talk about whether or not its something we should keep to begin with. --Bobak (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant third party coverage. I did a search and only found some blog entries, youtube videos, and press releases. Any advertising and/or press releases are not counted as independent of the subject. Nikki♥311 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let them put on some events, get some coverage no significant third party coverage. I did a search and only found some blog entries ...did you guys even bother looking? There's tons of third party coverage and they HAVE put on shows. I've included ppv listings, wrestling and mainstream news coverage promoting said ppv, and sites covering results. Judging by exposure/wrestling media coverage, talent pool and in-home availability The Urban Wrestling Federation is the number 4 wrestling company in the United States, behind WWE, TNA and Ring of Honor. With literally dozens of groups with less notoriety having pages, the possibility of deletion is a joke.

http://www.indemand.com/product/view/231520 https://www.directv.com/entertainment/program/details/SH014091500000?omnitureReferrer=GS http://www.metroatlantablack.com/arts-a-entertainment/41-entertainment/273-urban-wrestling-federation-announces-pay-per-view-dates-for-debut-battle-first-blood-to-air-on-ind.html http://www.thesource.com/blog/post/75788/Urban-Wrestling-Federation-Premiere-?thesource-prod= http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2011/0602/540243/ http://www.pwinsider.com/article/59341/urban-wrestling-federation-first-blood-ppv-report.html?p=1 http://www.wrestlingnewsarena.com/2011/05/poster-for-urban-wrestling-federations-first-ppv-new-blood/ http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/5/prweb8450881.htm http://www.wrestlingforum.com/other-wrestling/536303-urban-wrestling-federation-set-make-its-debut.html http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1309108700 http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/Urban_Wrestling_Federation_Holding_First_Show_On_6_3_In_NYC.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.208.127 (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. The keeper, above, comments "I think their publicists are doing a very good job"; says it all, really. TerriersFan (talk) 14:53, 5 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. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full Dekk Music Group

[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. nothing in gnews [33] google mainly reveals directory listings not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable 3rd party sources. I didn't get any mentions on Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Jazz Quartet

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The band fails the notability guidelines of WP:BAND, and I have been unable to find reliable sources that discuss the band in depth, other than just mentioning their works. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is being made less than 3 days after the no-consensus closure of the previous one using precisely the same rationale as before. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the non-English-language references identified by other editors in the previous discussion, and referenced in the article. (I'd been about to add a Keep view in that AfD on the basis of Vejvančický's contribution when the AfD was closed.) AllyD (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are books mentioning their work in-depth. It has enough relevance and this AfD is unfair because its opening immediately after previous one. —Fitoschido ^[shout] \\ 27 June, 2011 [17:07]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Chapman (Canadian)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although this version of the article is almost identical at the body text level to the version that was previously deleted, WP:DELREV felt that the inclusion of added references merited a new discussion instead of a G4 speedy. That said, the references are still extremely weak and unreliable; a large number of them are to YouTube videos, band profiles on iTunes or other music stores, collections of private correspondence that's "available upon request", Wikinews articles, radio show guest lists, and other such inadmissible sources. Some are to newspaper articles, but even those fail to demonstrate his notability outside of the single midsized media market where he worked — and even DELREV acknowledged that while the volume of references looks more impressive this time, the actual quality of them was still very unlikely to pass muster against our inclusion guidelines and that the article probably should come to AFD again. I still don't see how it's anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The London Free Press coverage seems to be primarily about him (listed in the title of the article, not on-line). [34] is national news coverage from ABC (though minor not trivial). All told easily meets WP:N. I don't think deleting a bio for only having local coverage is suggested or required by any guidelines or policies (though if I'm wrong I'd like to know). In any case there is a bit of broader coverage. I'm good. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We quite regularly downplay local media coverage when evaluating the presence or absence of notability; if we didn't, we'd have to allow an article about every single person who ever got written about in their local community Pennysaver. Which is not to say that local media coverage is always invalid, but it counts for a lot less in the WP:GNG sweepstakes than non-local, national or international media coverage does. For one thing, as was noted in the original AFD discussion, his "bestselling" book can't be properly sourced as "bestselling" — several online bookstores, including ones which specialize in deep and obscure catalogue books let alone biggies like Amazon, don't list it at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 26 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just about. I never liked articles with 40 references where 30 of them are non-independent, but there does appear to be a small number of substantial sources about the person, both at local (London Free Press) and national level (ABC). Probably meets WP:BASIC, which is just as well as he fails pretty much all of the additional criteria at WP:ENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francissca Peter

[edit]

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

Poorly written article on a singer of some notability, the article was written by someone who was paid to do so by the artist herself as I found out in an email I received from the page's author. Despite their attempts to improve the article itself promotes their early life and work, thus I am nominating it for deletion. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:35pm • 11:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appeared in multiple commercials and stage productions, has a following in Malaysia. seems to meet WP:ENT Warfieldian (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what is written is truthful, then this should be kept as it would meet the WP:music criteria. However some facts need to be checked and referenced to see if this is true and not exaggeration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:42, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator concedes that she is notable, so the solution to any shortcomings in the article is to improve it through normal editing rather than by deleting it. In addition, the article makes strong claims to notability, and 11 references of varying quality are provided. Paid editing is discouraged though not forbidden, and is not a legitimate reason in itself to delete an article about a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on notability alone; feel free to remove the promotional content - even to stub, if needed. Probably best to cut & paste deleted content to talk page with explainer as to why it was removed. No need for AFD to do that: WP:BOLD. And thanks for finding content in violation of WP policy. - Davodd (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Proctor

[edit]

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

(Nominated article as a previous ((prod)) had been posted and later removed.) While I have the greatest sympathy for the victim and her family, the article on Ms. Proctor is simply not encyclopedic. She has no encyclopedic notability beyond being a victim of a horrendous crime; however, Wikipedia is not news and not a memorial. In short, she is only notable for a single event. Wikipedia is not a repository for articles for every victim of crime, even one as significant as murder, absent other factors. Given the facts of this case, there is really little potential for expansion of this article. Agent 86 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following page, relating to the purpetrator of the crime, as it does not meet the requirements of WP:PERP. This was the only murder committed by the purpetrator. While tragic and sad, there is nothing unusual about this case that sets it apart from any other similar crime.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I will give this article a try, for users to expand it. Then if not up to standards it can be up for AfD again. but feel the article potential.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel to see how any amount of rewriting will change the fact that this person has no notability beyond a single event.Agent 86 (talk) 00:38, 27 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT - this is exactly why Wikinews exists separate from Wikipedia. As with the decision we made with the 9/11 victims, notability needs to extend beyond the mere circumstances of a person's death. Either the person has to have been individually notable before the death, or some sort of notable aftermath of this specific death needs to meet notability requirements. - Davodd (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see where she had any encyclopedic significance apart from being the victim of a crime. Everything public there is to know about her belongs in an article about the crime rather than ber biography. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting Requirements FLVS

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An "article" that merely lists out voter eligibility requirements of the U.S. state of Florida. I'm not entirely sure what makes this state's voter eligibility requirements any more or less notable for an encyclopedia article than any other state's. "FLVS" in the article title leads me to believe this is an ongoing class project from the Florida Virtual School, and a quick look through the history reveals various individual authorship claims ([35], [36]). The only salvageable content I can find is the mention of the U.S. Supreme Court case Dunn v. Blumstein, which should either get its own article or possibly get mentioned in Voting rights in the United States. According to the talk page a now-retired editor tried to clean it up back in April 2010 but admitted that the article possibly merited deletion; that editor asked for help from those who had been editing it and got no response, even to (what I think is) the simple question of "what does 'FLVS' in the article title mean?" The title is not a plausible redirect to anything. Previous AfD in 2009 closed with no consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This topic is, or can be, sufficiently covered by Voting rights in the United States, and this title isn't even appropriate for a redirect due to the cryptic abbreviation "FLVS" in the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H S Koraddi

[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. Highest office held is president of a local agricultural board. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment from Sauraswipe (talk · contribs) was added to the talk page. It is transcluded here for consideration as part of this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]

H.S.Koraddi is into active politics & social service since 33 years , holding many public offices in Bijapur district. The Recent one being APMC President, which is one position per district , representing 12 hundred thousand(12,00,000) farmers of bijapur district. He is a Notable personality in Bijapur & surrounding districts. He has also held many public offices earlier.

Elected Director for Nandi Sugars, A Co-operative Sugar Factory. (For 2 terms of 5 years each)
Currently holding , Sevadal District President of Bijapur District.

Let me know your thoughts accordingly. -- Sauraswipe.

Comment He may have held many public offices, but none of them rise to the level of notability required by WP:POLITICIAN, and there is no indication that he meets the criteria of WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 20 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps he's well-known in his native country, but Google and Yahoo didn't show any reliable sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Borg

[edit]

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

No reliable sources found to establish notability of an individual. Listed as a producer/assistant producer on TMZ, but no mentions in Google News, books, or other reliable sources. Appears to be well-promoted online, such as his "Sean Borg Goes LA" gossip blog, but self-publicity (or publicist publicity) does not equal encyclopedic notability. tedder (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a gossip magnet at best and a complete promotional/BLP nightmare. Perhaps Borg will make a viable name for himself some day, but as far as Wikipedia's notability criteria goes, he's not there yet.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possibly speedy delete - as non-notable - bordering on self-promotion/spam. Main editor, User:Jollypiper, appears to be Mr. Borg, as almost all edits on that account are related to promoting properties associated with Borg. - Davodd (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riverbed Technology

[edit]

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

More non-notable tech company spam. —Chowbok ☠ 19:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large NASDAQ traded company. 81.218.153.66 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large company, traded on NASDAQ, lots of notable mentions in news sources. Sources include:
Delete, weakly. This business is a designer and manufacturer of WAN optimization and network traffic measurement products. Simply being publicly traded on the second (and tech oriented) stock exchange does not necessarily mean they've had significant effects on technology, history, or culture. They might have: but press release based stories about contracts awarded, plans for future products, litigation, and petty trade awards you've never heard of do not make that case. I didn't find anything in Books or Scholar praising this business about the significance or historical importance of its wares, and News is mostly the same PR stuff. The article itself lists its product categories and acquisitions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it needs cleanup to remove promotional tone, it's a keep because: 1) useful to folks researching NASDAQ corporations, 2) data is easily verifiable by trusted 3rd party sources, 3) Public corporation traded nationally in U.S. - Davodd (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Disclaimer: I edited this page a lot to get it into something which is readable and matches reality. I would like to object on the "non-notable tech company" statement: Gartner names Riverbed market share leader for WAN optimization (2010, 2009, 2008, 2007), Riverbed Named a Top Three Best Place to Work in the Bay Area etc. Yes, most of the news sources on the internet show press releases or rewritten press releases, therefore (unless linking from www.riverbed.com isn't as not done as I suspected) an objective source is hard to find. Funny thing btw is: The list of competitors contains everybody who competes with Riverbed. But do their pages link back to Riverbed? Didn't think so... Edwin Groothuis —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Riverbed is the maintainer of several notable network administration tools including Wireshark (formerly Ethereal), tcpdump, libpcap, WinPcap, and AirCap. This is because the creators of these tools are currently employed at Riverbed, after Riverbed took over CACE Technology. Given the importance of these tools and their listings in Wikipedia, it seems to me that the company should be listed. Danellicus (talk) 01:10, 3 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You (Amanda Lear song)

[edit]

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

Non-notable single; did not chart. Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...but the text includes sourced sales information, and the article is definitely long enough. It should stay. 1000MHz (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 22 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single doesn't meet the notability guidelines for albums. The length of the article doesn't make the subject inherently notable. I agree that sourced sales information is better than not sourced, but 40,000, 100,000, or a million sold copies is unhelpful if the single isn't covered by reliable third-party sources. So far, her music video on YouTube, a track listing and album display on a cheap website, and a non-notable music ratings page are not sufficient independent sources. --I Jethrobot (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene McMann

[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable "cancer patient advocate". —Chowbok ☠ 20:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two dead links backing up the money line that this is somehow a "Chicago Woman of the Year." Worth further investigation, but I can appreciate the righteousness of the challenge. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia treats athletes and porn stars too easily and philanthropists too harshly. I'm impressed enough with [CHICAGO BLOOD CANCER-DOT-ORG] indicating that Ms. McMann is its founder to say that this one should be given the benefit of the doubt as a KEEP + IMPROVE. Carrite (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One source that profiles her is the local NBC news station. That should be good enough. Borock (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets minimum standards of notability. - Davodd (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Patel

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the recent Scripps National Spelling Bee champions have independent articles on Wikipedia. Samir Patel's claim to fame is being a runner up in the spelling bee and a couple brief appearances on game shows. Also he has failed to qualify for a national forensics tournament and won a local Dr. Pepper paintball tournament. A few mentions in media coverage of the Spelling Tournament doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Warfieldian (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 22 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per User:Metropolitan90 below. Keep (and add cleanup tag) - Although currently the article is poorly written and in need of a good edit, the subject is of historical and national prominence in the U.S. similar to winners of nationally prominent sporting events - and probably more so than early contestants of "American Idol" - who do have astonishingly robust bio pages here. NOTE: Just because it is the first article doesn't mean it should be deleted (Wikipedia is not paper, etc.). May be of use by future scholars or researchers studying U.S. spelling bees. Even though you or I personally do not find this the least bit interesting is of no matter; we are here to document such cultural minutiae and historical footnotes in case they is needed by a researcher in the future. - Davodd (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC) - Davodd (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This biography of a living person is about a minor and includes an insulting characterization of him in the lead. Apparently it is okay in some people's minds to make fun of a person for not having won the National Spelling Bee (an activity he engaged in between the ages of 9 and 13). Somehow I suspect that the people engaging in such mockery never won the National Spelling Bee themselves, and probably some of them would have been lucky to be the spelling champions of their classrooms. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The bar for creating biographies of minors should be high, and this article demonstrates why. I agree with Metropolitan90. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the "insulting characterization" from the lead as failing verification. The "source" is here, and it appears to be a blog or op-ed. It appears the original quote from the source was used in past revisions, but various editors came by and bastardized it to suit their own opinions; regardless, the original quote was inappropriate to begin with. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the real world. Fails the WP guidelines as well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:54, 28 June 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.