< 27 June	29 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 merge to Rome Sevens. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Women's Sevens[edit]

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

I may be wrong, but this looks like a hoax and copyvio of Hong Kong Women's Sevens. See the Duplicate Checker. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source and this source seem to suggest that this rugby tournament is not a hoax, though the name of the tournament seems inaccurate-- it should be Roma Seven Ladies Tournament. The 2010 stats also seem to be coming from these pages. Not sure where the 2011 stats are coming from-- I can't find them on the website. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE!!! This is not a hoax. The introduction is based on (but it NOT the same as) the Hong Kong Sevens introduction because it is a women's sevens tournament that includes the unofficial New Zealand team, so is a very similar event so many of the same notes therefore apply - though as one takes place in Hong Kong and other in Rome they are also very different!!! 2011 results were published as the games took place, based on reports from the stadium published in various sources (mainly news media). The tournament organisers have probably not published the scores yet on their website, which actually makes this all the more important as this is the only source that brings all the scores together in one place. As for the "correct" name of the event, that seems to depend a little of your translation from Italian, but also the fact that the wider sport is invariably called "Women's rugby" and "Women's rugby sevens" - "Ladies rugby" is simply not a sought term, so "Roma Ladies Sevens" or (even worse) "Roma Sevens Ladies" would simply not be the term most people seeking information would search for. I've now made a few changes so it is clearly different to the Hong Kong page. Everyone now happy???Johnlbirch (talk)
- Almost. It looked like a hoax to me because I read "Roma" as "Roma and Sinti" instead of recognizing the city of "Rome". Changing the name of the city in the correct English form willhelp a lot. The participation of unofficial teams also makes the status of the tournament unclear. Is it an unofficial tournament or is it an official tournament? Fix that, and I will be happy. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry - it is called the "Roma Sevens". Check the English language website and the name it is given on Scrumqueens (the leading women's rugby website) and the FIRA forum. You may not like this, but unfortunately that is a fact. I fail to see why Wikipedia should make up a name for the tournament that no-one else uses.Johnlbirch (talk)
Merge Not a hoax, but it should be merged into the Roma seven article. The first paragraph is a standard introduction for Sevens rugby and the rest are just results. AIRcorn (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. —AIRcorn (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - title should be "Rome" sevens, "Roma sevens" sounds like Gypsy rugby tournament. Regardless of the title on the website, which has several grammatical errors in the English.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rome Sevens. --Bob247 (talk) 21:32, 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 delete. m.o.p 19:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Sheldon Sands Whitney[edit]

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

No significant coverage to show her notability. There are multiple reliable sources, but none of them even come close to giving coverage that would count as anything but trivial. They are nothing more than one sentence mentions in articles about her spouses or just run of the mill wedding announcements. Her spouses may potentially be notable, but we all know that notability is not inherited automatically by marriage. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some news articles that Whitney was a witness in a court case against her husband, Richard Whitney. But being a witness in a court case is not notable. Also, agree with Yaksar-- even if Mr. Whitney is notable, she is not inherently notable by proxy. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage of her to pass WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources with significant coverage are not present, notability has not been established. - SudoGhost ™ 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sources exist but do not assert notability.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:28, 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. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2021: An Aviation Records Compilation[edit]

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

Non-notable comp —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no indication that this compilation album has been noted. I can find no coverage about it, nor can I find any critical reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can tell, this topic has completely escaped RS notice. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources and no evidence of notability.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:29, 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. While appreciate the keep arguments, there's one thing to note - notability cannot be established on the promise that an article will become notable after having a Wikipedia entry. Recursion is messy, and also unverifiable - article notability is extracted from the present, not the future (see here for more explanation). If Mr. Lee becomes notable in the future, then an article can be created. Any questions are welcome on my talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George T. Lee[edit]

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

Article is purely a promotional piece for a lawyer. I can find no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. Has been tagged for notability for nearly a year. Orlady (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the requirements for Notability. --Ozgod (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established. - SudoGhost ™ 01:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Targeted Google search reveals a small haystack with few likely needles. No assertion of encyclopedia-worthiness made in the article, which reads like a cross between a family tree and an advertisement. Both of these are no-nos. Carrite (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Notability is quite clear actually. Mr. Lee is an authority in an emerging area of law that is highly relevant today (Dodd Frank, funds and family offic) and a known speaker (his lectures in the area are very well attended). His lineage is also noteworthy. The above commentators - while applying the rules - surely know little about this specialization or understand Mr. Lee's contributions in these area. Keep in mind that notability is increasingly being established by a wikipedia entry (not vice versa). 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.225.234 (talk) — 209.163.225.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I have personally contributed to Mr. Lee's entry and have spent time and effort doing so. There are few authorities in George Lee's area of law of his caliber and note. Most recently, his contributions, including as to recent federal rules on family office structure following Dodd Frank, have been meaningful in themselves and of continuing professional and public interest. As stated immediately above, the entry for George Lee itself is helpful in educating as to noteworthiness. Starksrile 2:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starksrile (talk • contribs) — Starksrile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Please maintain this - would like to see more on Mr. George Lee. I navigated to him on a review of the recent family office rules, read his letter and understand he was a potent/important voice on behalf of some of the bigger ones with the SEC. This is a tough area to obtain information on and will grow in importance. I have heard Lee is quite close with a number of large family offices ($billion+) and relied on by them. The fact that the families and Lee seek to remain "under the radar" probably explains why there isn't much out there at this time. We should keep the entry and encourage more information on Lee. - katielexie 7:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katielexie (talk • contribs) — Katielexie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment If it will grow in importance, then when that happens, and sufficient notability can be established, the article can be recreated. As it stands, however, the article does not meet that very important criteria. - SudoGhost ™ 01:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is obvious that George T. Lee is not significant and not worthy of being an article. He does not meet the standards of Wikipedia, but if he ever does somehow reach standards of Wikipedia then this article can be recreated. This article does not meet the necessary criteria for an article on Wikipedia, for now.--Ltuck3 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If GTL is a major figure in fund law and family office law (which I understand him to be from sources), shouldn’t we want the bio to encourage the information. Having influential figures tied to powerful people continuing to operate under the radar screen and out of public view not necessarily in the public interest. This notability stuff is really a*^ backwards – just my 2 cents. But the debate is intriguing – would KEEP the bio - 01:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.225.234 (talk • contribs) — 209.163.225.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. It's unclear whether the article's existing citations demonstrate notability, and given the typical use-of-Wikipedia-for-promotional-purposes commentary on this AfD, it doesn't seem we can safely take the article creators' word for it. Source review is difficult given the commonness of the subject's name and the historical figures who have shared it, but a reasonable effort does not readily turn up notability-demonstrating coverage. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (yet) and article is promotional. "notability is increasingly being established by a wikipedia entry" is not a reason to keep this article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for someone.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:33, 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 delete. m.o.p 19:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Law of Institutions[edit]

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

Notability, likely self-published; the topic appears to be a concept mentioned on a blog that was then formalized on Wikipedia. While it has mention in other blogs, it does not appear to have any reliable third-party sources. The concept behind the article seems to be logical, but it’s difficult to verify. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failure to meet WP: GNG. There are mentions in some books, but these are mentions rather than full discussions of the concept. More importantly, they do not seem to reflect the same political science concept as discussed in the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR.--JayJasper (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Cannot find reliable sources that give evidence of notability.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:35, 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. v/r - T P 23:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hartl[edit]

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

Delete − The subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. This article has been written because of a single page on the BBC news website. He was not the subject of the article, he was simply interviewed for the article. The main WP:N notability criteria is that there is "significant coverage" about the subject, which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and not just interview his once or twice with regard to another issue. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A single mention on a single news webpage does not qualify as significant coverage. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually no, he's also been mentioned twice in New Scientist, and those are just the mentions I happen to come across at random. And his name was already in two different articles Tau and Pi. He seems to be just about notable, and he seems to be a fairly well regarded published author for Ruby stuff as well. -Rememberway (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that you are the creator of the article. Besides that, you have just hit the nail on the head: "He's also been mentioned in New Scientist". If you read our notability criteria then you'll see that we require "significant coverage about the subject, which means that sources address the subject directly in detail". Recent, one-time, by-association, news coverage is insufficient. (The BBC were using τ-day as a humorous aside, where Michael was mentioned in passing; as with New Scientist!) Michael clearly also fails WP:ACADEMIC which was the only real hope of inclussion. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC) P.S. I have removed mention of the subject from tau as a clear violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. Just because someone or something makes the news, it does not make them worthy of an encyclopedia entry. As a new editor I recommend that you discuss changes involving this person and topic on article talk pages in future. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually on over 30,000 edits. This is my second account partly due to stalking issues with my old one. So I would appreciate it if you cut out the misplaced condescension. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't vote in AFDs you called yourself, and didn't go out of your way to turn articles into orphans just to increase the chances of getting them deleted. Generally these are considered bad things. -Rememberway (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being, or not being, an orphan has no relevance to an article being deleted. It is a suggestion as to how to improve an article. The only aim is that thee article be cross referenced, i.e. woven into the Wikipedia web. But you know that as an editor with 30,000+ edits. Firstly, let me remind you that an AfD is not a vote. Secondly, let me remind you that any editor in good standing may comment on an AfD. I did as the creator of the AfD, and you did as the creator of the article. Why is it okay for you to comment, but not for me?— Fly by Night (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because it's not a (true) vote, and because that's the AFD process; I suggest you actually read it before creating any more AFDs. You're not supposed to do that. -Rememberway (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help me by linking to the section that you suggest that I read. I know that I should "…refrain from repeating my recommendation on a separate bulleted line" but I haven't done that; I've bulleted my original comment; not repeated it. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to use the bullet like that at all as a nominator. I suggest you read other AFDs. This is just making you look bad. -Rememberway (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that he meets WP:ACADEMIC (he might do, but I haven't seen it). However his advocacy of the Tau / Pi issue seems marginally notable, even if it's something of a focus this week. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet the notability requirements. --Ozgod (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the claimed AFD criteria is wrong, he's not an academic anyway. In fact his day job is as an author and educator. -Rememberway (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment − There is no such thing as an AFD criteria. There is an AfD discussion that uses Wikipedia policy to discuss the possible deletion of an article. The recent, by-association, press coverage (which has already finished) is not enough to pass WP:N. As an academic, the subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Unless you're telling us he's an Ice Hockey player and he passes WP:NHOCKEY or that he's politician and he passes WP:POLITICIAN…? — Fly by Night (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Tau Sources do not show Hartl meets notability requirements. Some of this information is already covered in Tau. The coverage by CNN, BCC, and other sources seems to be exclusively about Tau Day / Pi Day debates, and not about Hartl himself. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He meets Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. he's coined the term 'tau' for 2 PI, and he's also written a significant essay on it which is all over the technical press at the moment, mathematicians are commenting on it etc. Note that they are all interviewing him about the idea. -Rememberway (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People come up with original ideas every days. Is his idea notable? Has it won any significant awards? How has it impacted his field in any lasting way? --Ozgod (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect so. Although in a sense he has only coined a new use for an old symbol, he's written an essay and come up with a convincing reason to start using it, and he's avoided the problems that the previous guy who suggested using a completely novel three legged pi symbol would have created. He's also dealt with the major issues like Euler's equation. And it's not really just an immediate in-the-news-today thing, he's been appearing in the press for a good 6 months now, and I would expect people to start using it, as he noted this kind of change has happened before with symbols like h_bar. -Rememberway (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He decide to multiply π by two. It's only got into the news as a "…and finally" segment. It's funny, it's wakky, it's zanny. That's all. Even if it does go on to have a lasting impact on the mathematical sciences, it would take a good few years to judge the effect. When we have school children being taught that the area of a circle is

{\displaystyle {\frac {\tau }{2))r^{2))

, or academic papers using it as standard, then he'll have made a significant contribution. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I find that it's already historically significant that he's proposed it, whether or not it's not picked up. Other people like Fred Hoyle have proposed pretty much the same thing, but don't seem to have captured the imagination in the same way, but we'll see whether this has, in the end, stuck. -Rememberway (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established. Article's subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. - SudoGhost ™ 02:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yup. It's moot. Neither does Queen Elizabeth II. Although he's trained as a physicist he's not working as an academic, so he wouldn't be expected to meet it, nor is it required. He's an author and an educator. He meets WP:AUTHOR. -Rememberway (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of his idea has not been established, this article is WP:TOOSOON, at best. - SudoGhost ™ 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to me that the primary reason adduced for the notability of the subject is his introduction of the constant τ. The relevant guideline is of course WP:PROF, to determine if this is a lasting and important scientific contribution. It's a clear fail there, as the subject has a Google scholar h-score of only just two or three. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exactly as per David. Nageh (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd heard of him before. Sufficent media coverage. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as David Eppstein says, does not meet WP:PROF and per WP:BLP1E. --Crusio (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability and the whole thing smells a bit of questionable promotion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete In addition to the tau day stuff he got a Ruby Hero Award in 2011. But the article we have right now is quite short and I'm not sure I see how it could grow into anything at all substantial, unless there are some biographies or other sources out there that noone has brought up yet. Kingdon (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to be kidding about the Ruby Award, right? I don't think that the Ruby Hero Award counts as "…a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.". From what I can see, Ruby is a programming language, and there's an online "Ruby community" where people, as a hobby, write open source programs, like plug-ins and apps, that they share and talk about. The Ruby Hero awards are then awards given to members of that community, by that community. Kind of like what a "Wikipedian of the year" award might be. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm trying to agree with you, if you'd let me. Getting into an argument about how widely used ruby is, or how significant his awards or the ruby tutorials he's published are, is pretty far afield from whether Hartl is notable as a person. Which at least as I read the policies is very much tied to WP:V—we can't write a bio if there are no biographical sources. Kingdon (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Besides that, you have just hit the nail on the head: "He's also been mentioned in New Scientist"' Uh no. Point of fact: he was actually interviewed in New Scientist, it wasn't simply a mention of his name or anything like that. And they have a whole page to do with tau day which he called, and was widely publicised. -Rememberway (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you posted doesn't mention him in the least. I'm sure one of the subpages may name him, but if there is I cannot see it. - SudoGhost ™ 23:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. "It's time to kill off pi, says physicist Michael Hartl, who believes that an alternative mathematical constant will do its job better" The article that it links to from there is paywalled though, but that's not my problem, it's still a verifiable, notable source in a science magazine, and plenty of Wikipedia's sources are inaccessible without subscription. -Rememberway (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not required to believe me. What is required, however, is sources that back up the notability of the article. He is not the subject of your link, the subject is Tau, and if this link you've provided is the best source, it falls squarely under WP: BIO1E, meaning that this article should not exist. - SudoGhost ™ 05:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't fit general notability or WP:PROF. Also seems like one of those people covered by passing news events that only gets coverage for a few days (WP:EVENT), I don't see him becoming notable right now. --RAN1 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand, he was interviewed in New Scientist magazine 08 January 2011, and he's come up again over 6 months later. He was also mention on Pi day in March, and a few days ago on Tau day and there's a pretty good chance that he'll be mentioned next Pi day. There's about 5 or 6 mentions in total in New Scientist, and then he's been mentioned in lots and lots of other technical magazines and lots and lots of newspapers, blogs etc. as well. The previous guy Parais who published in the Mathematical Intelligensia has also talked about him, and supported his idea of using Tau. By any sane standard he's already notable, just because he's been noted by so many reliable sources. -Rememberway (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I haven't heard of Hartl until today, and what you've given me still does not cover WP:PROF. New Scientist is a magazine, and whatever few mentions there are in there over the span of a few months doesn't cut it for me since it's not actually a scientific journal or anything of that magnitude. A bunch of mentions in regular magazines also doesn't fit since he's more of a related person and not the actual focus of the articles. You can see the policies I mentioned above, but that's about it. I stand by my vote. --RAN1 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is about professors. He's not, and has never been a professor. He arguably may have been a minor academic at one point (he published a few papers on General Relativity) but he's not currently an academic either; he is and was an educator, and has won awards for that, and has written book on learning a computer language. WP:PROF doesn't cover educators. Being a teacher means that he's only subject to the general notability guideline for people: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". The fact that he's been listed in half the papers in the Western world and written a manifesto would seem to fit that, right? -Rememberway (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit dramatic. The answer, however, is still no. - SudoGhost ™ 05:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reinforce what SudoGhost said, no. The guy is making a claim that tai should be used as the circle constant, which falls under academia. I already mentioned this in my last comment, but mentions are not enough for me. As with my last comment, I stand by my vote. --RAN1 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. I should also mention that the whole tau stuff is the only thing that makes this guy have any potential for notability, which in itself falls under academia; hence why I refer to WP:PROF instead of general notability guidelines. --RAN1 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's notable for having proposed it, whether or not he's an academic. And he's not notable for the event, tau day, he's notable for writing his Manifesto, which has now been referenced from all over the place over a period of at least several months. -Rememberway (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if tau does not fit notability, neither does his manifesto and then Hartl doesn't either. About the manifesto, if I haven't heard about, it probably hasn't been referenced all over the place. I'm not going to argue my point further on this, this argument is getting nowhere. --RAN1 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, if tau is not notable. But in fact, for example, it's mentioned in Pi#Criticism and it seems stable there, so it's notable in that context, and referenced. -Rememberway (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Fails WP:GNG. Since Rememberway is determined to individually argue every single delete !vote on this page, I'll be sure to check back to see what he has to say about it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly haven't, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't engage in personal attacks. It's bad enough when Fly by Night does it (and he's been doing it an awful lot). -Rememberway (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rememberway, please don't engage in personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. As you ask others to do this, please extend them the same courtesy. Thank you. - SudoGhost ™ 06:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject seems unnotable by all BLP criteria. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this tau stuff is notable, notability is not inherited. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is not notable and I think since the creator has been indefinitely banned for vested interest in the "tau" topic there is little reason to keep it. Quandle (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rememberway has not been banned. He has been indef blocked. There is a difference, and it's a significant one here. Removing good articles because of the involvement of banned users is a favoured way of WP cutting off its nose to spite its face, even though it's obviously a poor way to build encyclopedias. Even then though, it only happens with the most egregious of bans and Rememberway's conduct here is a long way from that. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those citing BLP1E - how would you react to an article renamed to reflect the tau/pi debate?

BLP1E is clearly an issue here, WP:ACADEMIC doesn't appear to be met and the Ruby connection is trivia. Any notability (which clearly exists to some degree, even if there is a question as to its adequacy) is about the tau/pi campaign. Now this, IMHO, seems like an encyclopedic topic where readers looking for an objective background article could come here looking for one (and bollocks to WP:N. WP:RS and the rest, that's why we're here). We should, as an encyclopedic duty, offer an encyclopedic explanation of 2π and its virtues and historical context. We should explain the Planck constant as h or ħ to the geometers, and e^iπ = -1 to the physicists.

There seems to be a lot of call to delete this article because tau is seen as a silly bandwagon, and the notability of one person is being used as the stick to beat Rememberway with. At the same time, even if tau is silly, the concept and the campaign has generated sizable coverage and there is a reader-based need to explain what's behind it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer − if the τ issue sticks around, then it would be a good idea. But at present, it's more of an "…and finally" part at the end of the news. It's a little mathematical titbit that the population can grasp. But that's the point: this τ thing only really exists in the popular media. There are almost no mathematicians taking it seriously. That means that very few mathematicians will use it, and the chances are it'll just fizzle out. I, personally, would say that it's too soon, and it's a case of recitism. Having said that, there's already an article about Tau (mathematics), and that's going through an AfD. It's a close run thing. It seems that most of the delete !votes are coming from maths Wikiproject editors, while the majority of keep !votes are coming from less specific, more general interest editors. But the Tau (mathematics) article and its AfD are the places for this discussion, not Michael Hartl's BLP AfD discussion. We're in danger of discussing several articles in a single AfD. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"We're in danger of discussing several articles in a single AfD."

I think that would be a good thing. I feel that we need one article on this issue, and I really don't care if it's called Tau (mathematics) or Michael Hartl - the content would be one Ruby book away from identical. Having no articles though is a diservice to our readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion, and the overwhelming consensus to delete Michael Hartl is a strong indicator that the community doesn't think an article about Michael Hartl should included. If you want an article about τ-day and the π/τ debate then Tau (mathematics) is the place to discuss that. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tau (mathematics), assuming that article gets Kept. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or failing that, as Cybercobra suggests a Merge is a good idea. Dr Hartl is certainly notably the main force behind the Tau/Pi debate, even if he gallantly credits another for the first idea. AFAICS all present agree that the Tau page is worthy of a page as not merely "news fodder" mathematics but as a thoughtful socio-historical campaign about how we view established terms and constructs. A Mathermatical (Michel) Foucault with humour. And it has a fairly decent traction among the public, and academics, who generally like both the humour and the logic. Hartl deserves some credit for this, so if you are going to insist on a deletion, then some better mention on the Tau page would be worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.247.163 (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — 82.35.247.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, no. Not everybody agrees that the Tau page is "worthy of a page". As you've commented on the Tau deletion article, you should know that. - SudoGhost ™ 19:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sudo, you're right there: I was coming back to change my erroneous assertion on that point after I went back that page and realised I was wrong on that count. Computer crashed, forgot etc. happens. Still, I believe the argument has sufficient merit and traction to be contained either on a Hartl or a Tau page.

Delete Not notable. An attempt to promote his idea about tau. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Notable in being an advocate for Tau.--EdwardZhao (talk) 17:55, 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. v/r - T P 23:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palmanova beach[edit]

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

Gibberish, automated translation from Spanish what left "something" to desire. Unuseable article in this form. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not gibberish. It is also notable. See: Wikipedia:Notability_(geography) essay, and Wikipedia:Notability_(Geographic_locations) failed proposal. Which neither is a formal guideline, they are useful framework for analysis. Also, to look ahead, see how these geography disputes often end up: [[1]] Wxidea (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish we had a template like the Dutch WP, where you can nominate an article of bad quality for deletion in two weeks, unless it is improved enough. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wonder if it would work to delay the start of discussion of AfDs by seven days. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in fact Palma Nova? According to g-maps, the town is "Palmanova." Multiple issues going on here. --Oakshade (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does appear to be Palma Nova. Palmanova is in Italy. If it's a tourist destination, what do the package holiday brochures call it? Edgepedia (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] says "Palma Nova has three large beaches - Playa de Son Maties, Playa de Palma Nova and Playa des Carregador. Is a beach notable? Edgepedia (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article a little and tagged it for further clean up. Edgepedia (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at the Panoramio photo and the satellite view. The white strip of sand speaks by itself, surprisingly easy to identify as beaches go. I'll not mention any policy, guidelines, or essays; instead invite readers to view pictures of this partially manmade beach, some filled with people:

Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't see the gibberish here. Passes notability.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:09, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Prince[edit]

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

Subject has not attained notability standard of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Hocket is not my forte, but upon reviewing the specific notability guidelines cited, I do not think the subject to be appropriately "notable" at this time. --Ozgod (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle feature article
Ottawa Citizen feature article
Faceoff.com feature article
The Syracuse Post-Standard feature article
Cyberpresse inc feature article

The many published feature stories about Shane Prince pushes this article well over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of the links Dolovis provided are duplicates of the same article. Not to mention they are all routine draft coverage which is a case of WP:BLP1E. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of the articles are duplicates, and none are what I would classify as "routine coverage" either. Dolovis (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are only related to draft coverage. Where are the articles much prior to this time? Where are the awards? He placed 10th in OHL scoring. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Placing 10th in the OHL in scoring does not make one non-notable. Not winning a major award does not make one non-notable. Not being drafted in the 1st round does not make one non-notable. None of those things confer presumed notability under NHOCKEY, but none negate notability achieved under GNG through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Dolovis points out above, there's a solid case that he meets the GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not solid at all. It's only related to the single event of the draft. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He also received coverage prior to the draft. He received that coverage regardless of whether or not he was drafted. 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I am still on the fence, though leaning towards keep, but I should note that both the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and Ottawa Citizen also had feature articles about Prince before he was drafted. [3] [4]. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are only related to draft coverage. Not prior. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I linked to are dated June 21 and June 22. The draft didn't start until June 24. Hence they were prior to the draft. Rlendog (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shane Prince is the biggest story in Ottawa hockey right now. He's captured the hearts of the 67's community and has been drafted by the Ottawa Senators. Stories about him in the Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa Sun, give him GNG status! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullwinkle18 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough to be notable internationally. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete although later on I think this bio is likely to be kept as he was drafted by the Ottawa Senators, I think this should be deleted for now. WP:NHOCKEY says that 1st-round draft picks are usually presumed notable, according to the article he was drafted in the second round, which puts the notability in question. Minima© (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is any question that this player fails all the presumptive notability criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. The question is whether despite missing the first round, and thus presumptive notability, he received enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines under WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was not an article on him specifically before the last few days and around draft time. Simply being drafted is not enough. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, simply being drafted is not enough. But being drafted and generating significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is enough. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP * I would agree that this player fails all the "presumptive" notability criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. However all one needs to do is Google "Shane Prince Ottawa Senators" to see that this is a remarkable individual worthy of being recognized and added the the great collection of Wikipedia sports personalities. Articles on this athlete are being added almost daily. It would be an injustice to deprive Wikipedia users of having the option of viewing details of Shane Prince. I don't see the point in removing this from the Wikipedia collection. Clearly Shane Prince has a huge following and is important in the Ice Hockey World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullwinkle18 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1. You already registered your 'keep'. 2. Are you a member of his family? Leave off the hyperbole. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the sarcastic question either.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has received enough news coverage to pass general notability guidlines. Borderline, but passes in my opinion.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:19, 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. v/r - T P 23:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Saad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of article has not yet attained notability standard of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Achievements at lower age groups, but not at junior (under-20) or junior-level (under-20)championships or college-levels. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], and apparently a few ESPN articles. Rlendog (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has won major awards. The article could use an expert on the genre to flesh out the biography a bit more. --Ozgod (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The NAHL is not major. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a matter of opinion. Consensus may be so, or it may not be. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tier II league. See the NAHL article. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with you that it is not. But other editors seem to believe it is major enough to meet NHOCKEY, as they interpret it. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided links show that Saad meets GNG. Canada Hky (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just routine draft coverage. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much, but not all, is draft coverage, but not routine coverage. See, for example, Collin Sullentrop, for a case of routine draft coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hasn't won a major award as the NAHL doesn't get a lot of coverage outside of it's home markets (and even in some cases in it's home markets). However, subject meets GNG per the USAToday and THN articles. Patken4 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just routine draft coverage. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much, but not all, is draft coverage, but not routine coverage. See, for example, Collin Sullentrop, for a case of routine draft coverage. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being named the NAHL Rookie of the Year and being selected to the NAHL First All-Star Team are preeminent honours which meets NHOCKEY criteria #4, and so is being named to the World U-17 Hockey Challenge Tournament All-Star Team, but that discussion is moot as this player passes GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources as found by Rlendog. Dolovis (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't think of the NAHL as a major junior league. It's a "Junior A Tier II league", as mentioned in its article. Then we would have to include all-stars from something like a dozen of those leagues in Canada. (BCJHL,etc.) As for the articles pointed out by Rlendog, these all seem related to the NHL draft. I think they are a bit iffy. I think that those are not enough for several reasons- the discussion includes other prospects, he's the subject of a regular column on prospects, and when it comes to the draft, it's all part of the discussion of the draft, and a one time occurrence. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the stories I linked to were published at various times prior to the draft. The Detroit Free Press story and Hockey News story are solely about Saad. The Michigan Live story is about Saad and one other player; the fact that it covers two players doesn't mean it doesn't give Saad significant coverage. The USA Today story does cover other prospects, and is the most skimpy in its coverage of Saad, but it still gives 3+ paragraphs on Saad and makes him the story lead (over 1st round draftee JT Miller and uncontroversially notable Rocco Gimaldi), regarding him as the top of the USA crop. The Hockey News story is from a column that covers prospects, but the fact is that Kennedy covered Saad in detail in his column, and not, say Collin Sullentrop. Only a limited number of players get such a column, many if not most end up as #1 picks, and if they are not #1 picks they still need coverage besides this column to meet GNG. Saad did get the column and additional coverage, and thus does meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all draft-related. A single event. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hockey News article was about him being a good prospect. It would exist and he would have been a good prospect with significant coverage by The Hockey News even if for some reason he was never drafted. And he received significant coverage, and indeed was drafted, because of his performance in many games - many of which were covered in reliable sources (albeit not in themselves establishing notability). Many events. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the USA Today article was published 8 months before the draft, although its coverage of Saad is more limited. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be significant coverage. In addition he was one of the potential first rounders (ranked 19 by Central Scouting) who slipped into the top half of second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability. Plenty of news coverage.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:23, 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. v/r - T P 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Khokhlachev[edit]

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

Topic has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to have enough coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, e.g., [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Rlendog (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All are cases of WP:BLP1E. Only routine articles about being drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles I found were about him being drafted, but they are not routine because (1) getting drafted is not routine as not all eligible players get drafted and (2) not all draftees get this level of coverage, i.e., multiple full length stories about them. These multiple independent reliable sources thought that his getting drafted was worthy of a feature story. And this is not WP:BLP1E, unless we are to presume that he received zero coverage up until now for his hockey playing or his prospect status. Although normal game coverage is considered routine, such coverage negates BLP1E, since it still represent coverage beyond the event of being drafted. Rlendog (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting drafted isn't routine, but the coverage of the picks is. Almost everyone picked right down to the last picks in the draft will have an article like these in their home towns or in towns they played major junior, or in the cities they were drafted in. Usually all three. Routine coverage also doesn't negate BLP1E. Because routine coverage isn't notable coverage. Only being notably covered more than once negates BLP1E. This is the reasoning for requiring the first round in the WP:HOCKEY. Because beyond those players almost everything is routine draft coverage when it comes to these sorts of articles. There are of course exceptions. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on both counts. WP:BLP1E states " If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." And reliable sources do cover these players in the context of multiple events - the games they play, the stats sites. We do not regard these as counting towards the multiple reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability, because even players who we do not regard as notable receive such coverage, so those sources are meaningless in that regard. But BLP1E and notability are not identical. These players are not low profile outside of the event of getting drafted, due to their playing games that get covered in newspapers on an ongoing basis, if nothing else. As for all players who get drafted getting such a story, they don't all get one. Most get a blurb about Team X drafted Player Y from Team Z, who is this tall and weighs that much, maybe with some stats. But they do not all get full length stories about them, and certainly not more than 1 or 2, if that. So when multiple reliable sources choose to publish full length articles about the player, whether because they were drafted or some other reason, they meet our reliability thresholds. Rlendog (talk)

I would also state the requirement regarding the first round differently. Being drafted in the first round doesn't make the player inherently notable. But we do know that players drafted in the first round do get significant coverage - a story in the paper(s) covering the team drafting him, a story in The Hockey News, maybe a story in their hometown paper. Also, the probably received coverage leading up to the draft based on their obviously high potential. And the 30th pick in the draft is no more likely than the 31st pick in the draft to have any extensive additional coverage unrelated to their draft position. Not all 2nd and later round draftees get such coverage, and so we cannot presume notability for them. Rather, it has to be demonstrated. But for those that can be demonstrated get this kind of coverage, they meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. Canada Hky (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being selected to the World U-17 Hockey Challenge Tournament All-Star Team is a preeminent honour which meets NHOCKEY criteria #4, but that discussion is moot as this player passes GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources as found by Rlendog. Dolovis (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drafts and coverage are based on performance during multiple seasons and can hardly be considered "one-time" events. Anyone with that many mentions has already shown a significant amount of skill. The Steve 07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability requirements as shown from links provided above.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:25, 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 keep. v/r - T P 23:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Rattie[edit]

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

Subject of article has not attained notability standards of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the coverage is not about him personally, only in context of prospects, joining the team -- routine coverage. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're all about him. Several are from before he was even drafted, e.g., [15], a full article just about Rattie. Rlendog (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he passes WP:GNG as demonstrated by the significant and non-routine coverage he has received in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including:
The Calgary Herald feature article
Ottawa Citizen feature article
Matchsticks and Gasoline feature profile
The Hockey Writers feature profile
Sandy Post feature article
The Portland Tribune feature article

The many published feature stories about Rattie pushes this article over the GNG threshold required for a stand-alone article. Dolovis (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above cmts- plenty of sources, he was one of the potential first rounders who slipped into the top second round. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability requirements as shown from links provided above.--EdwardZhao (talk) 18:27, 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. m.o.p 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching for Democratic Living through 3S Understanding[edit]

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

Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:GNG. The work is by Henderson, and so references to his own work are not reliable, third-party sources. The other sources are books by Chehayl and Dewey. Dewey's work in the 1910s is interpreted to create this teaching method, and is a form of original research. The Chehayl citations do mention the importance of the 3S methodology, but by itself, does not provide enough support for the method's notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTESSAY. I also agree with I, Jethrobot's reasoning on the reliability and notability of the sources. - SudoGhost ™ 02:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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. v/r - T P 23:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Di Sabatino[edit]

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

Biography is largely based on primary sources and sources dealing with the documentaries of this individual. Little biographical information exists about the guy in RS's and the article appears to be being used as a platform to disparage him due to his work in a controversial area. Errant ^(chat!) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the notability requirements of a creative professional (specifically 1, 3, 4.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgod (talk • contribs)
Delete. Subject has communicated a desire for the article to be deleted as well. In the eyes of the subject, the material is mostly designed to disparage the subject. It uses out-of-date articles referenced on a website designed to malign the subject and his creation of a documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles referenced were discovered by me using various google search indices eg scholar, book, news. They were not found on any other site and in fact cannot be found there. While they refer to a period several years ago, they enhance his reputation as an historian of the Jesus Movement and contributor in the area of Christian worship, with no attempt to malign or disparage the subject. I'm puzzled by the subject's apparent reluctance for these articles to be listed.smjwalsh (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may be a marginal claim to notability here, given that the subject of the article wants it deleted and there may be BLP issues it's probably better to delete. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep Smjwalsh has put forth some compelling arguments for notability. He has also requested time to restore previously existing content that he feels does a better job of conveying that information, which is a very reasonable request. The article should remain. The notability of the subject as a creative professional is questionable, but there is some level of interest in him based on his connection to Larry Norman. Suggest redirecting to an appropriate section of that article.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DDS is notable independent of Larry Norman. His 1994 annotated bibliography on the Jesus Movement would alone establish his notability as the premier historian of the Jesus Movement. His other creative efforts supplement that original notability. It would be unfair to see him as a footnote to the Larry Norman story, although as a major critic of Norman that could warrant his inclusion.smjwalsh (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because subject requests deletion should not be a factor in decision to keep or otherwise. It is presumed efforts to vandalise article were by subject. Much of the article was from RS, non-controversial, and definitely NPOV. Content can be dealt with in usual way by article editors. Subject has written the authoritative book on Jesus movement, which is frequently quoted in subjects related to this topic. That should be sufficient to establish notability. His 2 docos add to his notability, as does articles he wrote, and interviews given in various RS. Article was not created to disparage subject. ONly recent reference to one website could be regarded as in any way disparaging, but nothing in the article is POV, or violates BLP. Subject may not wish for his past as Christian writer to be featured, but there's nothing controversial there.smjwalsh (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, click on Google Scholar and you will see DDS referenced 26 times. You will also see his 1994 bibliography cited 12 times by other scholars. In Google Books you will see him referenced on cited over 100 times in by a large number of authors.smjwalsh (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with User:Qrsdogg- between the marginal notability, BLP battleground issues, and subject's request to delete, this should be deleted. First Light (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know subject is requesting deletion? Where is the request from the subject? I have no reason to doubt Walter's word, in fact I would vouch for his veracity, but it is bad policy to accept such a request through a third party. Further, even if the subject requests deletion, would it be good policy to automatically accede to such a request. Would we do so for someone of unquestioned notability? Of course not. As regards BLP issues. There is a mechanism in WP that works well for material that may libel a LP. It has already worked in relation to this article. Why delete an article because of a one sentence rreference to a website that makes accusations against the subject? That would be a prime example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Finally, the only real issue raised to date is the questionable notability of the subject. This is paramount. If DDS is not notable, then it automatically follows that the article should be deleted. I believe I have established notability in my earlier comments, however I recognise that these same points are not made in the article currently. It did so when the article was created. Allow me the time to strengthen the notability of the subject in the lede.smjwalsh (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the deletion because there seems to be no biographical detail relating to this guy; sure he has written some notable material, but I can't find any in-depth coverage of his life to satisfy notability. By arguing keep you are arguing this is the case; so can you back up the !vote? --Errant ^(chat!) 08:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you added considered one of the pre-eminent historians of the Jesus People Movement; certainly if this view is widely held it would establish him as a notable individual. Do you have a source for it though? None of the sources in the article support such a general suggestion. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very good points here and above. I have changed my recommendation to "Keep".--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The request from the subject was made in private correspondence. Shall I ask the subject to support the request? I can't guarantee that he will post here, but I can make the request. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such requests (living persons asking for an article about them to be deleted) are formally made at Wikipedia:OTRS. This type of request is not uncommon. I think if you forwarded the email to OTRS, it would make it 'official'—though I'm assuming good faith, and IMO it is already legitimate for the sake of discussion here. First Light (talk) 19:47, 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. m.o.p 19:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul William Bannister, Sr[edit]

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

Delete − The subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. According to the article he was in the navy, he wrote a book (which ranks number 3,012,679 on Amazon's best seller list), he was a policeman, then he worked for the church. None of that makes the subject notable. Searching on Google gets a few hits to his own Baptist church's website; but nothing independently or significant. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable author of a non-notable book. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 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) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuula Benivolski[edit]

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

A young artist with no evidence of notability at this time. This does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG. Third-party references are limited to zines and weekly papers with no evidence that the coverage is beyond the trivial. freshacconci talktalk 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major press coverage, no significant awards. --Ozgod (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 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) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyecam[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources Contested prod noq (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 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) 19:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Pleasants[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I can't find any significant reliable sources covering the subject directly. It seems he's mainly known for claiming Charles Bukowski had Nazi sympathies, which is easily BLP1E. No lasting notability and probably none to begin with. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant awards or press coverage. Does not meet WP:Notability. --Ozgod (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 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) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Rosenthal[edit]

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

I can't tell if this is a complete hoax, a spoof, a fantasy, a fictional character or what, but none of the sources check out and none of the claims show up except in Wikipedia mirrors. Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, etc., created by an SPA years ago, who vanished immediately afterwards. And I actually watched the "documentary" credits linked in the final reference, until I got to the screen where the dog attested to being of legal age and participating voluntarily, by pawprint. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. When I did a search for "Paula Rosenthal the inventor of modern sex" I found only wikipedia and mirror sites. A simple search for Paula Rosenthal revealed only the Wikipedia site and other unrelated Paula rosenthal's. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BOLLOCKS. Nicely added references, only one of which actually mentions the subject - and that is in a sort of Swiss cinematic Youtube site. I don't think that this Paula Rosenthal is a hoax - not entirely - but I do think non-notable. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it isn't a hoax, certainty does not appear to be notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So this article may be a hoax. Let us not not hold that against it without due consideration. Think, gentlemen, of the advantages Wikipedia would enjoy by the open promotion of hoax articles. A couple come to mind immediately:
1. I think we are all in agreement that BLP issues are of paramount importance to Wikipedia. Hoax articles offer no possibility of BLP violations. Anything written about a fictitious person, even including outright vandalism, affects no real person adversly.
2. We have the problem of editors who wish to contribute content. Though these editors are of a very small percentage in relation to the entire Wikipedia community, they offer a significant threat to BLPs. They can add unsourced information to BLPs. Even worse, they can add sourced information to BLPs. We all agree this is unacceptable behavior. So the encouragement of hoax articles will keep these editors busy while allowing us better people to work on making up and discussing rules, trying to get each other blocked, etc., without worrying about what these content-creators are doing. It's a win-win situation.
Frankly, given the ever-increasing barriers to work on articles on real people, I think hoaxes are truly the wave of the future for Wikipedia. I beg you to reconsider your positions. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I never quite thought of it that way before. Perhaps we need to establish the Wikipedia:Hoax Rescue Squadron or Wikipedia:Hoaxes for Creation? Qrsdogg (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Rescue Squadron shouldn't be necessary if we are able to move consensus to approve "Hoax" as a criterion for Speedy Keep. Think about the ramifications of this: This would place the burden of proving the article is not a hoax on the shoulders of those wishing to delete it. They must provide significant coverage in secondary reliable sourcing proving the article is not a hoax. And, of course, the article can easily be kept by our stubborn refusal to accept any sourcing-- simply label it all "Unreliable", "Trivial", etc. In this way, also, articles on real subjects-- and therefore potential BLP violations-- would be more easily deleted, as the editors formerly wishing to keep them, would be busy working on their pet Hoax projects. No one would bother trying to find sourcing for articles on real subjects targeted for deletion-- why go through the hassle? Let them delete it so I can write my article on Barfloord Henfroodendeedle, the first Emperor of Doofnickle. As I said before, a win-win situation. Gentlemen, I repeat, Hoaxes are the future of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - If we can verify the information I would say she was notable. Otherwise its just heresay. --Kumioko (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be a hoax. If someone can provide verification of the claims made in the article, I'd change my vote. --Oakshade (talk) 07:33, 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 delete. The consensus appears to be delete. The keep !votes just are not supported by policy. "At least mention it" does not cover the significant coverage criterion of WP:GNG and Google Scholar also is not supportable by policy as a reason to keep. However, consensus appears to be that this is a hoax. If significant reliable sources are found proving otherwise, there is no prejudice to recreate. v/r - T P 23:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta meson[edit]

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

Clearly a fake. Particle is neither mentioned in PDG tables nor in the references included in this article itself. ulm (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The particle is not included in PDG tables because of its technically hypothetical nature, as it says in the article. None of the references are devoted entirely to the zeta meson itself but all at least mention it. Hopefully more information will get added as time goes on from more sources, but that won't happen if the article is deleted. LarryLadd (talk) 00:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Larry... just a quick question :) As article creator, perhaps you might be able to explain the difference between a Zeta meson and, for example, a B meson? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Flowerpotman: I believe the zeta meson can have positive parity? I'm not exactly clear on that myself, though. LarryLadd (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources actually mention zeta mesons. Description is incoherent. (If a zeta consists of a bottom and antiup, what do top quarks have to do with it?) Literature search of zeta meson reveals nothing even close to this. (There was a 5sigma statstical fluke at 8 GeV in the 80s that was called the zeta boson though.)T R 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, at what accelerator at Argonne these particles should have been produced? ATLAS has only 17 MeV per nucleon which is clearly insufficient for production of bottom quarks (let alone top quarks). And the Zero Gradient Synchrotron had already been shut down at the date that is mentioned in the article. --ulm (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is fake. The author's personal page is also fake: The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is claimed to be awarded "to LarryLadd for his tireless contribution to Wikipedia, especially his work on the J/ψ meson". One can check that he has never edited the article on the J/ψ meson. He claims also to be Russian native speaker even 3 times, and a lot of other languages. -- Ace111 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Scholar finds several references to a hypothetical "zeta meson" ("ζ meson"). That seems to establish notability, although part of the article content is highly dubious and obviously needs serious attention. However, that's not grounds for deletion. -- 202.124.73.102 (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those use seem related to the current article. Moreover, the different uses do not even seem to be related to each other. I'm sort of doubtful that any of those meet the GNG. Even if they do, the current hoax article needs to be deleted.T R 11:40, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worboys Committee[edit]

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

No references, therefore questionable notability. Gerardw (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. This article is about a legislative committee that standardized road signs in the UK. Statements of the article are verifiable and in fact easily verified with the automated Google searches, revealing some substantial discussions[16][17][18]. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep Just search The National Archives for pages and pages of reliable and notable sources. --Ritchie333 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added some references from Hansard and an existing reference from Herbert Spencer's page, though I was unable to quickly find one that indicated Jock Kinneir's involvement. The original premise of "No references, therefore questionable notability" is therefore now invalid, and I would request we WP:SNOW this and keep the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I was expecting a page about a hugely non-notable student group with delusions of importance when I came here, but yes, the standardisation of UK road signs is a notable topic, even if it's only of interest to anoraks like me who read CBRD and Pathetic Motorways. The only argument against a stand-alone page is that this information might fit better in a page about the history of UK road signs. However, that's a discussion for another day. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't Merge - with reference to the comment above, I am the guy who split this page out from Road signs in the United Kingdom for the simple reason that the committee was being referenced in articles all over the place (not just about British signs, but Irish ones and European ones too). So it seemed logical to have them all point to one place, and there's about 12 article pages linking to Worboys Committee right now. Notice that the results of the Worboys Committee influenced the Vienna Convention of Road Signs which is the underlying agreement that most of Europe uses, and that significant chunks of Worboys's results have been reproduced in signs the world over. Not to mention Kinneir and Calvert's work on the easy-to-read "Transport" fonts that are in use on signs all over the place. They may be a bit unknown, but Worboys, Kinneir and Calvert shaped the world we live in. They deserve a page. If there's insufficient references, it's because there weren't any in the source material (i.e the Road Signs in the United Kingdom page). No-one ever complained about that! Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hansard may well prove a fruitful research source for this article. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this comment is outside the rules, but it is an enormously significant committee. Not only did it give us the road signs we know and love today, but it was also widely quoted as a case study in public sector decision making. It consulted psychologists, traffic engineers, graphic designers, and came up with rational answers instead of decision making by politicians and the media. How do I know about it? Because I was taught about it over a decade later. And the BBC has certainly done items on it in the last few years (Top Gear?) though not necessary searchable by that name. --AJHingston (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Captain Slow took Margaret Calvert out for a drive and interviewed her whilst doing so. Then he vandalised a "man digging" sign after she suggested that she hadn't quite got it right back in the 60's. Series 14 Episode 7 from January 2010. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's ridiculous even to suggest deleting an article which is linked-to from 12 other places and itself links out to about 10 other article pages all of which contain references and other cross links. By that reckoning Worboys Committee could and maybe should be classified as an important glue page helping hold Wikipedia together. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of references most certainly does not equal questionable notability. It just means that nobody has yet added a reference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per WP:SNOW Gerardw (talk) 19:30, 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) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Ade[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about Living person with no significant claim to notability. As far as I can tell she hasn't done anything significant enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia Sadads (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with the nominator's statement, in practice WP is a directory of every person who has achieved a certain level of success in public life, especially sports, politics, journalism, education, and show business. By that standard her article should be kept. Steve Dufour (talk)
Delete Notability has not been established for this article. - SudoGhost ™ 19:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established. --Ozgod (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language in Bolivia[edit]

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

Delete, a merge to Languages of Bolivia is not really necessary as the information is already included there. This is not a notable subject on its own. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. If there was some special information about Bolivian Spanish, like there is about American English for instance, given in the article then it would be a good topic. As it is the information is already in the other article, mainly how many people speak it, etc.Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Steve Dufour, given there's nothing to merge, really. The Don Quixote's image is nice, but it isn't relevant to the subject - frankie (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image just appears to be part of ((Spanish)). Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Languages of Bolivia". That page is very schematic and could benefit from prose such as that on "Spanish language in Bolivia". "Languages of Bolivia" also lacks any discussion of regional variation in Spanish (though the assertions about dialects on "Spanish language in Bolivia" lack a reliable source). Cnilep (talk) 03:52, 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 redirect to Jordan School District#Elementary schools. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Peak Elementary School[edit]

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

Unremarkable elementary school, the page does not assert notability. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jordan School District#Elementary schools. I agree with everything about the nomination except coming here. Per WP:BEFORE and established practice this could simply have been merged and redirected. I have now merged the minimal amount of encyclopaedic information so now it simply needs redirecting. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of redirecting it, and I wouldn't have known where to go, and it did not seem to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; and I am sorry if I sounded a bit sharp. The normal practice is to merge/redirect US elementary/middle schools to the School District and for other countries to their lowest locality. High schools are, in contrast, normally taken to be notable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per TerriersFan. postdlf (talk) 20:48, 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) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete Green's theorem[edit]

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

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

The subject of the article appears as basically a lemma in the cited sources by Wang, Doretto, et al, but it's not the main focus of these works. These papers have been cited a few times, but it looks like these citations by an large do not emphasize the result, which suggests that its significance does not rise to the level of notability required for an encyclopedia article on the subject. Indeed, the theorem in the article is a trivial consequence of the Fundamental theorem of calculus, and is a routine calculus exercise. It is not uncommon in mathematical papers to state and prove such results in the process of carrying out some greater endeavor, and that seems to be the case with this particular result. But being some small part of a larger, perhaps very significant, work does not in itself lend notability to that particular part. Moreover, Wang et al do not use the term "Green's theorem" anywhere in their article. The moniker seems to have been assigned only by the author (User:Amiruchka), who has used the later sections to promote his own original research on the topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - almost utterly beyond me - if I accept the existaence of Green's Theorem, reading of the article suggests the discrete version is original research. Mark^Dask 15:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The theorem is not a lemma in Wang et al.'s work, please review this ("Theorem 1" in ^[1] and in ^[2]). In those papers, published by the highly important computer vision conference ICCV and an important Springer peer-reviewed journal, the authors bring the theorem as a key practical and theoretical result. The theorem forms a straight-forward generalization of the Integral Image algorithm (an algorithm that has been in intense use by computer vision researchers ever since Viola and Jones's work from 2001), into continuous domains. Further, the thorem is not a "trivial consequence of the Fundamental theorem of Calculus", On the contrary: it generalizes it into higher dimensions. Part of the beauty that this theorem reveals is the combination between continuous mathematics (because the theorem is formulated over continuous domains, and involves multiple integrals etc.) and discrete math (the discrete linear combination of the antiderivative's values at the domain's corners). Wang et al.'s paper was cited 37 times within just 4 years, and at least 2 generalizations were published to the theorem. To sum up, I feel that this is a significant theorem in the computer vision community and as such, it deserves to be part of Wikipedia. With best wishes, --amiruchka

Wrong. The theorem is an utterly trivial consequence of the FTC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's even simpler: It's a trivial consequence of the additivity of the integral. This is not a deep theorem: it's a totally routine calculus exercise. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear Sławomir Biały: It's a beautiful theorem that combines the inclusion-exclusion principle (a term from discrete mathematics) and calculus. Its proof is not more trivial than that of Green's theorem: you are welcome to review Wang et al.'s proof. Thank you. --amiruchka —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Umm... No. Just decompose the region into rectangles and sum. Very simple stuff. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can agree that while the theorem's proof is not trivial, its formulation is quite simple. Would you hold the theorem's simplicity and elegancy against it? You are probably familiar with Sir Isaac Newton's famous quote:

“

Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

”

--amiruchka

Comment - Of the 3 cited papers that appear to be peer-reviewed, I see no mention of a "Green's theorem", discrete or otherwise. Was this name made-up by the author of the wikipedia article? Does anyone think that this is something other than original research? Also, the arXiv and Wolfram Demonstrations Project sources cited by the article are not reliable, nor do they prove notability. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The arXiv and Wolfram citations are not brought there to emphasize the theorem's significance, but rather to explain the theorem's formulation. The article's name was indeed given by me, in the memory of George Green, whose theorem resembles this one (see the discussion in the second paragraph). The reason I did not name it "Wang's thorem" or "Wang's formula" is that Wang had 4 colleagues to his published paper, where the theorem first appeared. You are welcome to suggest another name to the theorem. Thank you. --amiruchka

~~Speedy Delete~~ - You've verified that the name of the article and much of the content is the result of WP:OR, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Do you still protest the deletion of this article? (With your support we could close this discussion per WP:SPEEDY G7 or WP:SNOW). Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 17:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - Indeed, I protest. The "no original research" citerion implies to facts, allegations, ideas, and stories - which is not the case, in my opinion, with the ~~theorem~~ article's name. I gave a reasonable explaination to the choice of the name, which shows respect to one of the greatest mathematicians in history, George Green, due to the similarity between this theorem and his. Anyone who argues this selection, is welcome to suggest a different name. --amiruchka —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - It should also be made clear that Amiruchka, the primary author of the article; Amir Shachar, the "Israeli mathematician" mentioned/cited in the article; and Amir Finkelstein, cited 4 times in the article, are one and the same, as can be verified by looking here and here. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please let me clear up the personal issues. My name used to be Amir Finkelstein until a few months ago, when I changed my last name to "Shachar" in the memory of my beloved mother, Sarit, who unfortunately passed away a year ago. My publications at Wolfram Demonstrations Project and the talk I gave at the AMS meeting were held before I changed my name. Note that the main goal of all the self-citations that I bring at the paper is not to promote my own work, but rather to make the theorem clearer for one who first encounters it. Clearly, the demonstrations at Wolfram are aimed to help people understand mathematical results, and it is not the first Wikipedia article to include a Wolfram demonstration on that behalf. Note that I also embedded a demonstration at the Integral Image algorithm's article. Please note that in the current version of the article, my name is not mentioned even once (apart from the references part). I would appreciate it if the theorem's significance could be addressed, rather than personal issues. Thank you. --amiruchka

Delete - The article does not pass WP:GNG, and is clearly a case of WP:OR and WP:SELFCITE. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request - I request to compromise, given that I have removed all my self-citations from the article. --amiruchka —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

References

^ Wang, Xiaogang. "Shape and Appearance Context Modeling" (PDF). in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) 2007. ((cite conference)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Doretto, Gianfranco. "Appearance-based person reidentification in camera networks: Problem overview and current approaches" (PDF). Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. 1–25, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2011. ((cite conference)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ozob (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward Delete. The theorem is not very deep mathematics. As others have said it's more of a simple exercise. It is also unfortunate that the author has called it Discrete Green's Theorem as it doesn't seem to be a discrete version of Green's Theorem. Yes, it's sort of related, but not really closely enough to retain the same name. Perhaps some of this material could find a home in the Integral Image article. I think the main argument for deletion is on grounds of Notability rather than Original Research. And I do wish that we weren't calling this Green's Theorem. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The closest I could find to notable use of the term is this paper by Luren Yang and Fritz Albregtsen, it's been cited in the literature fairly often but I couldn't find anything in the way of a significant mention or secondary source. The article does not mention this paper and it says it's presenting a "version" of the theorem, apparently not the one given in the paper. No reliable secondary sources given in the article and none found in search.--RDBury (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the very least, this article is misrepresenting this result. A quick literature search reveals that "discrete" versions of the Green's theorem have been used for fast integral computations since at least the 1980s. Apparently with different people reiventing the wheel. There appear to be no notability as a mathematical theorem. There might be a case for notability as a technique in computer science, in particular for image recognition. If not, the present material at least gives a fairly clear presentation of the technique. I'd suggest finding a good place to merge the comment. Maybe image moment.T R 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (A version of) the theorem seems to me to be marginally notable, trivial to state, and easy to prove. However, any reference to the name needs to be excised, as there are real theorems called "Discrete Green's theorem". If someone can provide a plausible name, then rename (without redirect) might be suitable. (A merge would still require a rename-without-redirect first.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Arthur Rubin's statement. My intention when I chose the name for this article was to mark it as one of the discrete Green's theorems that were mentioned above (Tang's theorem from the 1980's, Yang-Albregstsen's theorem etc.), as stated in the first paragraph of the article. Although my thought was to show respect to George Green, I am absolutely in favor of renaming the article, since afterthought it might indeed be a confusing name due to ambiguity with other discrete Green's theorems. I suggest to rename the article to the ~~"Integral Image Theorem", since the theorem forms a rigorous extension of the Integral Image algorithm: to generalized rectangular curves over a continuous domain.~~ "Antiderivative Theorem", since the antiderivative takes a decisive part in the theorem's formulation. I changed the name "Integral Image Theorem" which is not successful afterthought, since the term image implies two dimensions, where the general theorem is formulated to n dimensions. ~~I was hoping that those of you who feel that this theorem is significant only, perhaps, in computer vision, would be satisfied with this name, which emphasizes the theorem's main application.~~ I was hoping to hear your opinion regarding this name, and discuss other name suggestions. Thank you, --amiruchka —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Since the beginning of this discussion I have performed the following changes in the article, due to the enlightening remarks of its participants:

I Removed all the self-citations from the article. Those citations were aimed to help one understand the theorem better and not to promote myself nor my work; however, since those citations were not well-received here, I removed them.
Since there were no objections to my suggestion above, I renamed the article to the ~~"Integral Image Theorem"~~"Antiderivative Theorem", and removed any mention of Green's theorem (other than in the "See Also" part) from the article, due to the above discussion.
I changed the formulation of the theorem such that it will match the formulation in Wang et al.'s work (the article now addresses a k-dimensional hyperplane rather than the plane). Thus, the article is now more consistent with Wang et al.'s and Doretto et al.'s works. --amiruchka —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The new title integral image theorem seems to be a neologism. I couldn't find any sources referring to this theorem by this moniker. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG, OR. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:44, 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) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Honda[edit]

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

While it is referenced that this person was convicted of a crime, it does not seem to me to be a notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. The case does not seem to have resulted in significant legal precedent or change in the public's views of the law. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject and crime is not notable. --Ozgod (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable crime, single event. Fails WP:PERPETRATOR. WWGB (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somehow -- As a BLP, I agree it fails WP:BLP1E, but if it is renamed and reworked to be about the Walkley Award-nominated radio feature, it might be able to stand, assuming it can find the relevant references. --Mark Hurd (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only known for a single event of heroin trafficking. --Vic49 (talk) 23:22, 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) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme SEO[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article Clearly is itself an attempt to use wikipedia for SEO, as seen previously in past spamming attempts. Has several links but they seem to be press releases, marketing and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and SEO are NOT the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. Yet another online SEO service advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced to directory listings and spamblogs. It is extremely unlikely that any business of this nature will ever have the sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Johnclean184 (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:B2B. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 16:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Interstellarsheep (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just say no to this kind of spam. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 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) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Kearan[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN, as he is only a candidate for office at the moment. (Actually he's not even officially that.) Google search brings up a lot of social networking sites but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 13:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is promotional stuff - why is it even AFD? Bobby Kearan is not notable. Mark^Dask 15:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this article has no information, the subject is not even notable, and it breaks the criteria for politicians. Could even be an advert for his candidacy. --Bsapp7 (talk) 17:57, 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 keep. One point: the CRYSTAL concerns no longer seem to apply as the event has now started. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants of Freedom Flotilla II[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The Freedom Flotilla II is a scheduled or expected future event, the list of participants is currently unknown. It is not possible to create a verifiable list of participants. Marokwitz (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Delete argument is faulty. It is not an "expected future event", it is an ongoing event. The Flottilla II is already gathered in Athens, participants are already participating in the event. --Soman (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Delete argument is not faulty. The article is a list of participants which is currently unknown, and contains statements such as "the following Canadian participants were expected to be on the Tahrir". Wikipedia does not deal with "Expected" details and unverifiable speculations. There is no reason (other than recentism) to be so hasty as to create this article before the voyage took sail and a true, verifiable list is published. Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the who's who might be important after the fact and is indeed not quite known right now. some said they would sail, then they wouldn't, etc. - very few are noteworthy. Soosim (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most participants are verifiably referenced. Many are notable enough to already have their own WP entries. Vessels have already left home ports - event is in progress. If particular participants can't be verified as participating, then there are grounds for removing those entries - not for deleting the entire article! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I put this page together in preparation for flotilla, realizing there may be some minor changes. Changes are what makes Wikipedia perfect for this list. The 2010 Freedom Flotilla has a similar page. Many individuals on page, are notable, as can be seen by large number of links to their pages. Page already has 3 main authors for the Canadian, Irish & U.S. ships. Finally, as this is ongoing story, at the very least we should wait until story has run its course. --Everett (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable and important event. It is not "scheduled or expected", it is already in progress, even if some of the boats are currently prevented from joining those which have already set out. Many of the individual participants are themselves notable, while the wide range of participants is also notable. The article is reliably sourced, and is certain to be expanded. RolandR (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very important event, and I am translating the articles into French. I know that there will also be a "deletion" request on the French wikipedia, we went through it for the first Gaza Flotilla. I feel that it is important to keep such a list, and to keep it up to date. GastelEtzwane (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important ongoing event. The combined forces of the US and Israel should never be allowed to censor this type of entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.115.139 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as reliable sources are used. Obviously changes can be made as people are found to have or have not participated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the non-RS sourcing can be deleted, and RS sourcing provided (where we either have no refs, or non-RS refs ... which is much of the article), this could well survive. In its present form, it is problematic (especially as it has statements as to BLPs, that are not sourced to RSs). I'll wait and see how it progresses, with the thinking that editors can improve it.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Due to the number of expected participants it would be unwieldy to list all participants on the main page. However, the page should be refined to reflect current or former participants. If described clearly on the page that the names of participants may not physically be on board these ships, but have (even by endorsement from cited source) supported the event may be considered participants, the article may be able to retain the majority of its names gathered from various websites. This is a poorly constructed page, but can be saved from deletion. Those editors that are passionate about the subject should take the time this weekend to clean up the article.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- with a BIG disclaimer As the page stands it doesn't meet WP:NOTE at all. Most of the content is simply copied and pasted from the organizers websites. It needs to be cleaned up. Rename to "Notable passengers of Freedom Flotilla 2" and only list passengers have received coverage by secondary sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that what is not sourced to RSs should (per BLP policy) be deleted. That would bolster the appropriateness of the list.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost removing some of the apparent uncited, all names that are not wikipedia notable should require a clear citation right beside their name, in fact all the names do, a clear support for them being on this ship or they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom's argument, CRYSTAL, doesn't stay (if ever it was to). Participation of multiple notable persons is a pro. These persons's statements (expressed, and the fact their being aboard) are notable. -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom's stated reason doesn't apply, highly notable, certain to be expanded and additional RSs added. --NSH001 (talk) 09:01, 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. No evidence of enduring notability to pass BLP1E has been applied so the policy based votes are the delete ones Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heenal Raichura[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This person is not notable, and the claim to notability "former youngest ever doctor in the UK" doesn't cut it either; at most this is notability in passing. Since the first AFD another "youngest UK doctor" entry was deleted at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Faye Hill; the reasoning there applies equally here, if not more so, since Rachael Faye Hill was (supposedly) the youngest doctor at the time of the AFD, not just a former youngest doctor. The Heenal Raichura entry also includes a list of awards won, but I see no sign any of the awards are noteworthy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'REPLY:.... notability in passing ......And for the same reason would you consider this article for deletion - Nathuram Vinayak Godse (19 May 1910 – 15 November 1949) was the assassin of Mohandas Gandhi - because it was one off "in passing" event?'--82.5.126.69 (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete under WP:BLP1E. Subject meets critera of WP:GNG as current sources show biographical information on Raichura is covered extensively by The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, NDTV, and Britain Today magazine. However, she still largely seems to be a case of someone notable for a single event. Some of the awards won point to deadlinks, and the NRI one doesn't seem to be for Raichura at all (the title says it is for someone named Malkit). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I stand by what I said last time. It's not whether we being the youngest doctor ever should be considered notable, it's whether independent reliable third-party sources found it notable enough to write about it. I disagree that we should be dogmatically disregarding the coverage because of WP:BIO1E - she is not an event, and she remained the youngest doctor for two years after the initial coverage died down. In any case, there has been subsequent coverage and awards since she became the youngest doctor on an international scale, so I think it's sustained and widespread enough to qualify for event coverage. One alternative might be to merge all these youngest doctors into, say, Youngest doctor in the UK (I think the information in this article is mergeable), but I disagree that this should face outright deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although coverage is normally required for notability, it isn't sufficient for notability. Lots of people get mentioned in news articles without getting encyclopedia entries. Hairhorn (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, that's a principle normally applied to people who are mentioned in news articles about an event they were involved in (the event of which may or may not qualify as notable itself). In this case, the coverage was specifically about her, and whilst the bulk of the coverage was after her graduation, it was national (and even international) in coverage, and she went on to get awards for this long after the initial coverage died down. In my view, this is enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E. really not much else he is famous for. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar. No indication she is notable for anything other than a brief spate of publicity when she graduated from med school. --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The comment - The Heenal Raichura entry also includes a list of awards won, but I see no sign any of the awards are noteworthy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) - speak volumes as those advocating deleting this article do not consider awards given by organisations outside western world of any importance.Do the western countries hold monopoly of importance of awards given? Would Dr. Heenal Raichura's importance diminish if there is no entry in the Wikipedia? I suggest to those advocating deleting this article also ask Google to delete thousands of other articles on this subject. And out of thousands of those who read this article online, why only few of those who have nothing better to do in life hell bent to have this article deleted? Why can't they be constructive?

"the reasoning there applies equally here, if not more so, since Rachael Faye Hill was (supposedly) the youngest doctor at the time of the AFD,......Hairhorn (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)- Or is this sour grapes for those who feel so strong about Rachael Faye Hill's article having been deleted?--82.5.126.69 (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — 82.5.126.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't actually see an argument for keeping in here, just attacks against other editors. Or are you suggesting the awards are notable? Hairhorn (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the tone of the comment, I believe the user is arguing that the awards are notable, and are not being recognized by other editors. As far as I know we don't really have a policy for assessing the notability of awards in fields where the awards themselves are generally less well-known (unlike filmmaking or music for instance), and medicine / being a doctor is one of them. This is problematic as it turns into one person trying to educate other editors on the importance of an award they may have never heard of at all and as such, there is an undue burden put on the article creators. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is also, equally problematic that the current awards are still not sourced. I have no been able to verify any of them and apparently one of them (The "Glory of India Award") is not based on published content but rather on "information found on Wikipedia" One source is a PDF written in Sanskrit which I cannot read. Someone else will need to verify this. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not the accomplishment of Raichura is legitimate enough to have an article is irrelevant. What is relevant, is the fact that the article is now outdated since she is no longer holds the record for the youngest doctor. Also, Raichura seems to only be famous for a single event, as her other awards aren't very noteworthy since they aren't sourced. --Asanti6 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't grounds to delete an article. If a person is notable for holding a record, he/she remains notable when the record passes on to someone else, and the Wiki article is updated accordingly. The only grounds for deletion is querying whether the record holder was notable in the first place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~
Those advocating deletion of this article seem to be missing a lot in the sense that they assume that they are the only ones who read these articles and have the whole and sole right of determining the existence of any article in Wikipedia.

Thousands of others who access this information online are not reliant only on Wikipedia. A Google search of Heenal Raichura shows more than 9,000 results. So would a deletion of the article from Wikipedia diminish her importance or her notability?

Notability is a phrase which can be twisted the way a person wants to twist. There are thousands of sports personalities and others whose names I believe none of the editors advocating deletion would have heard. Does this mean that their entries in Wikipedia should be deleted?

And who are we to determine the notability of a person? There are thousands of film actors and actresses in nations like India where they have millions of fans (more than population of UK) but none of the editors here would have even ever heard their names.

There are thousands of awards given to notable people in every country. Does this mean that those persons are not notable because they do not fit within the criteria of our “western culture” or is Wikipedia only for Anglo-Americans? If so, then these editors should propose to change its title to ANGLO-AMERICAN WIKIPEDIA.

None of those editors advocating have given any solid reasons except to give their own personal opinions. And how many of them are there, compared to thousands who read this article? Should these thousands be deprived of such information on the whims of such editors?

--82.5.126.69 (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck your vote, since you have already voted once. Hairhorn (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that the fate of this article was determined on voting basis.--82.5.126.69 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, as the tag at the top clearly states; but you still only get one vote. Hairhorn (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what was the point of striking off vote (atleast in your mind) which was never going to be counted in any case?--82.5.126.69 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are not going to be the judge, jury and the executioner.--82.5.126.69 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia does have a bias towards English-speaking countries mainly because editors more readily know how to find reliable sources from US and UK papers. That's not to say that coverage from non-UK/US sources are worthless - only that sources from elsewhere are more easily overlooked. If you can find coverage of Raichura in the Indian media (preferably after the date when she first got media attention by graduating), that might be enough to sway the outcome. I'd like to help, but with me being in the UK I wouldn't know where to look. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris for your concern. As regards to finding reliable sources,they are already there online. At the top of this discussion page,click on - Find sources - and you will find a number of articles in well known newspapers and magazines such as India Today,Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Sun, Telegraph,Times of India, Hindustan Times, Gujarat Samachar, Pratiyogita Darpan, etc.all published in English. The article was also published in the magazine of British High Commission in India, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office magazine,University College Hospital inhouse magazine where Dr. Heenal Raichura started her first job,and thousands of newspapers, magazines,was on radio and tv in every corner of the world. For the record, there are more newspapers and magazines published in English in India than anywhere elese in the world.Bearing in mind that I have already mentioned that there are thousands of websites on the internet to confirm this, it would be futile for me to convince those narrow minded who want to enforce their "western culture" and treat Wikipedia as being their own media to censor such articles.

Should this article be deleted, then it would definitly show the true colour of those editors and administrators.--82.5.126.69 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage, but as far as I can tell pretty much all of it is "youngest doctor" stories from when she graduated. As I mentioned in the nomination, it's not clear that any of that establishes notability, especially when Rachael Faye Hill had similar coverage from similarly reputable outlets. Hairhorn (talk) 15:35, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airagwani[edit]

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

On 20 April 2010, User:Mattgirling created hundreds of stub articles on places in Kenya, based on the unreliable source fallingrain.com. The sources was removed from all these articles the very same day by Xenobot, leaving these stubs completely unsourced. The problem is that some of them are duplicates (same village, different name), which I'll solve with a redirect, and that about 1 in 4 of them is not about a settlement (village, hamlet, town, community), but about farms and ranches. Considering the general lack of notability of these, the lack of any further info in these articles, and the dubious original source of them, I have nominated all these (about 118 articles) for deletion. I have not nominated the 250 or 300 others which are at first glance about real settlements.

These nominations only cover the articles in Category:Rift Valley Province, Kenya geography stubs, the stubs from other provinces will have to wait for another AfD. Fram (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated (will add the template soon):

List of articles

Aiyam
Akila Ranch
Arroi
Blackscythe Farms
Borana Farm
Boron Farm
Broad Acres Farm
By-Gum
Capsimotwa
Catante
Cedar Vale Farm
Chepitet
Chololo
Cimbria Farm
Dalalekutok
Daraja Farm
Delgany Farm
Dunan Farm
El Karama Ranch
Emarangishu
Emgoshura Farm / Engoshura Farm
Empuyiankat
Erkarkar
Esambu Keke
Gogar Farm
Gorge Farm
Harefield Farm
Hedaya Farm
Ithima
Kairi Mwihoti
Kaitet Ranch
Kalalu Farm
Kamara Farm
Kangaita Farm
Karamoja Farm
Katrima
Kedong Ranch
Keelah Farm
Keini East Farms
Ketparak
Kewamoi
Kibikoni
Kiboko Farm
Kibongoi
Kihoto
Kilima Farm
Kilima Pembe
Kimugandura Farm
Kimuri Farm
Kimwani National Farm
Kipsigak Farm
Kirungii
Kisima Farm
Kongoni Farm = Korongo Farm
Lairagwan Farm
Lechugu Farm
Loldaiga Farm
Loldoto Farm
Lombala Ranch
Lomet Farm
Low Ling Farm
Lucy Farm
Luoniek Ranch
Maiella Farm
Manera
Marmar
Marula Valley Farm
Maryland Estate
Mbilini Ranch
Mecun Farm
Melwa Ranch
Merueshi Ranch
Michatha Farm
Morengai Farm
Mpala Farm
Mtoni Farm
Muhutetu
Muramati
Mustuni Farm
Mutamayo Limited
Mutaro Ranch
Naboro Farm
Naiberi Farm
Narok Ranch
Naso Ranch
Ndiloi Farm
Ndurumo
Ngama Ranch
Ngata Farm
Ngesedai Farm
Ngorare Ranch
Ngwataniro Farm
Nunjoro Farm
Nyiro
Nyiroko Farm
Ol Ari Nyiro Ranch
Ol Choro Orogwa Ranch
Ol Moirogi
Oljogi
Olmaisor
Ololerai
Olpejeta
Olpinguin
Oltafeta Farm
Oserian
Pesi
Poka Group Ranch
Rombala
Samburu Ranch
Segara
Segera
Sirrima
Soisian
Soit Nyiro
Suguroi
Sweet Waters

Delete all Just checked at least 5 of these on google maps and they are duds. If a settlement cannot be seen then we should not have an article on it. Random satellite view, Middle of nowhere...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)<br?.[reply]
Delete all - wow - what strange being put this lot together - none of the sites qualifies as notable. Mark^Dask 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. After I created these from a database, User:Dr. Blofeld notified me of the lack of reliability of the source – had I known about this (we were both surprised that Falling Rain wasn't blacklisted), I wouldn't have added the articles. With the help of User:Xeno and User:Xenobot the refs were stripped, leaving many articles unreferenced. The above list (which I've "hidden" away) is no different to a gazetteer. matt (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done research. Although these articles lack references, number of them are notable enough. Many of nominated articles are about farms or ranches, not notable as such, but some of them have respective villages (large farms in Kenya may have hundreds or even thousands of workers, there have to be settlements for them). Some ranches have been turned into private conservancies, which are becoming increasingly popular tourist destinations in Kenya.

Coordinates given on each article may be highly inaccurate, so using Google Earth/Maps to determine whether there is a settlement or not does not make much sense.

I will add references to these articles as soon as I have time

Keep:

Ol Ari Nyiro Ranch - the book and movie I Dreamed of Africa are set here.
Oserian - not a settlement, but a major flower-farm company (that's a major export industry in Kenya). Also notable is the football club of the same name (and owned by the company)
Chololo - A ranch. Some Zoological importance, baboon studies have been carried out there for decades

Weak keep:

Borana Farm - now a conservancy. Rename to Borana Game Ranch
El Karama Ranch - now a private conservancy
Ol Choro Orogwa Ranch - possibly notable, subject of a book [19]. Several variations of spelling (Ol Chorro Orogwa, Olchoro Orogwa etc)
Oljogi (aka Ol Jogi) - now a private conservancy
Olmaisor (aka Ol Maisor) - now a private conservancy

These appear to be real villages and therefore I suggest we keep them:

Arroi
By-Gum
Chepitet
Dalalekutok - rename to Dalalekutuk
Emarangishu
Empuyiankat
Engoshura Farm - rename to Engoshura
Ithima
Kalalu Farm - rename to Kalalu
Kamara Farm - rename to Kamara, Kenya
Kewamoi
Kiboko Farm - rename to Kiboko
Kihoto
Kimugandura Farm - rename to Kimugandura
Kimwani National Farm - rename Kimwani, Kenya
Lairagwan Farm rename to Lairagwan
Lechugu Farm - rename to Lechugu
Lombala Ranch - rename to Lombala
Luoniek Ranch - rename to Luoniek
Maiella Farm - rename to Maiella, Kenya
Manera
Marmar - rename to Suguta Marmar
Melwa Ranch - rename to Melwa
Merueshi Ranch - rename to Merueshi or Merrueshi
Michatha Farm - rename to Michatha
Muramati
Mutaro Ranch - rename to Mutaro
Naiberi Farm - rename to Naiberi
Ndurumo
Ngata Farm - rename to Ngata
Ngwataniro Farm - rename to Ngwataniro
Oltafeta Farm - rename to Oltafeta
Pesi
Poka Group Ranch - rename to Poka, Kenya
Segera
Soit Nyiro
Suguroi

Redirect:

Olpejeta and Sweet Waters to Ol Pejeta Conservancy

Delete all the rest

Julius Sahara (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but where is the evidence that those are villages and not farms or ranches? E.g. Arroi is clearly a ranch[20]. Similarly, I couldn't find any evidence for By-Gum or Chepitet being a village. Fram (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out that Arroi is an administrative entity known as location. I'd say administrative status justifies its inclusion in Wikipedia. By-Gum and Chepitet (and Arroi too) have primary schools, which quite much proves there is a respective village. Julius Sahara (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources for this? Fram (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already updated some of those articles and used government websites as sources Julius Sahara (talk)

Two of the three don't work for me, and the third (about Chepitet) is hardly sufficient in my view, but opinions may of course vary on that. Fram (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked another you suggest to keep and rename. Marmar is at 0.78N, 36.75E. Suguta Marmar is at 0.49N, 36.40E. A different name and location, isn't that just a different article instead of a keep? Lairagwan, which you also want to keep, is a farm with a farm school. Does that make something a settlement and/or notable? Kimugandura, is just a farm, all sources refer to it as a farm, not a school or settlement. It is not notable at all[21][22].

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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asem Zhaketayeva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable singer. Fourth in a competition. Last nominated for deletion 2006. Article has not developed since. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it looks like it was kept as a No consensus last time when there was no actual argument made in any of the keep votes. Fails WP:BIO. No sources, I wouldn't endorse fourth place articles for more popular singing contest shows either. Notable for only one event and not really even that. Can't see any information in this ariticle that is not more appropriate for the SuperStar KZ article. Clear and unambiguous case here. i kan reed (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perimeter (EU Project)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another EU research project. What most of these articles share is that they're only pretending to be in English. This one is no different, and aims at providing true user-centric seamless mobility. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Moderno at Canyon Ranch[edit]

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

Contested prod, unremarkable housing development. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Housing developments/estates are not generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Necrothesp. Moray An Par (talk) 07:06, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shift (project)[edit]

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

Article de-prodded by creator without giving a reason or improving the article. Original PROD reason still stands: "Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another EU project, written in an atrocious style full of patches of patent nonsense: Project partners are following a “total quality” approach, embracing ethical, strategic and commercial criteria that constitute the key to the competitive quality of tourist destinations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 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 speedily deleted per G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of Dunfermline Council[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as OR - article has no citations backing up existence of this body, or at the very least under this name. Fife Council site has no refs I can find. Only ghits for article name are for article itself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:12, 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 speedy deletion as unambiguous promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pol-primett (project)[edit]

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

Article de-prodded by creator without giving a reason or improving the article. Original PROD reason still stands: "Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG." Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A major, multinational EU funded program is notable. Metal theft is a significant issue. Wxidea (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps also say why an EU funded program is notable? Yes, the problem addressed (metal theft) is notable, but that doesn't make this program notable. Is there significant coverage in independent reliable sources? How does this project that will exist for a few years only at this point meet any of the criteria of WP:GNG? --Crusio (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Media Player[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failed. CoreCodec, Inc. does not seem to have any media player for Windows. (It only makes a CorePlayer for mobile devices.) Fleet Command (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's merely past tense - version 4.11 of Core Media Player is still available for download from several shareware sites. And it is described here - http://web.archive.org/web/20091231111944/http://corecodec.com/products/coreplayer I'm not aware of any requirement that software articles only be current. And I'm not aware of any standard of Wikipedia behavior calling for article deletion, when this could have been brought up, and answered quite handily, in article talk. ADMIN - please close this as a premature AfD. --Lexein (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a discontinued product for Windows, it leaves a lot to be yearned in the way of Wikipedia:Notability. Fleet Command (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we're trolling for deletion reasons? Do a search, add a ref, answer your own question. I'm a little peevishly annoyed at deletionists who do no contributory work. --Lexein (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry! Now that I am having a better look at the source you have given, I see that it also does not mention Windows at all. (It says Windows Mobile but I didn't see the word Mobile in my initial scan and mistakenly assumed good faith in you.) And it still does not say anything about The Core Media Player. The page only mentions CorePlayer. I also found a "The Core Media Player" via Bing and downloaded it but my antivirus cried "malware!" from the top of its lunges. Hmmm... so much for verifiability... Fleet Command (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the recently departed Kevorkian said, "Must I do everything myself?" Products, and especially this one, have undergone several name changes. Blinkers off, everyone. http://web.archive.org/web/20030612023324/http://corecodec.com/ --Lexein (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:Verifiability says, yes, you must explain yourself because your sources are not enough to prove most of what is written in the article. And as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says "Wikipedia is not an advertisement platform" for your favorite product: Subject of an article must receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

And if I must explain everything, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering says, we do not cause unnecessary inconveniences for each other; so if the article has multiple grounds for deletion that can be addressed in one AfD, then we stick to Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions says, we do not deny the antecedents. Fleet Command (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent source of notability. Indeed, historically important products can have articles, but only if they are sourced. W Nowicki (talk) 22:39, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunfermline and West Fife Demographics[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as OR, the article concerning an arbitrary grouping of places, now confusingly similar in name to a parliamentary constituency but not apparently conforming to this or an any other entity supported by documentary evidence. Cited sub-unit stats are arbitrarily totaled to give a figure for an arbitrary greater unit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is relevant and I believe should be included, the article is cited well by official published statistics from the Scotland Census 2011. The reason for Dunfermline in the title is to help people find the article. I think nominating the article for deletion is a bit drastic, and any issue you have could be resolved on the talk page. This article brings useful information to Wikipedia. --Aaron McHale (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statistics for individual settlements are per the citation but the grouping of those settlements listed as being one entity and the rationale for totaling these figures is not supported by citation. This article was clearly not intended to be in regard to the similarly named constituency, not least because its original name (Dunfermline Conurbation and West Fife Demographics) did not correspond. It also includes significant settlements which are outside of the constituency. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A solution for the way forward might be to add this article to the West Fife article, and make this a redirect. I did not intend to reference the constituency Dunfermline and West Fife, I intended to reference Dunfermline and the geographical area West Fife. --Aaron McHale (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. West Fife is not not an article as such but a disambiguation page to two existing articles. If you believe it warrants an article in its own right this would have to make reference to the two existing articles, plus any additional material if you think there is some which falls outside the scope of these existing ones. This additonal material must be based on reliable sources however and not your own construct as to what you personally reckon to be West Fife. There would only be any point making "Dunfermline and West Fife Demographics" a re-direct if it was a reasonable belief that someone would search for that exact term. I don't think this is at all likely, in which case this article ought to simply be deleted. If you now agree that this article should be deleted please post below to indicate this (further discussion about West Fife should take place elsewhere). Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Inclined to delete, per WP:SYNTH. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and contribute to the discussion started on Talk:West Fife before any action is taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronmchale (talk • contribs) 17:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article should be deleted per WP:SYNTH. The stats themselves are not creative enough that history is needed for attribution if they were to me merged elsewhere; so the deletion of this article has no bearing on discussions for placement of demographic statistics in another article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Alvord[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Muhandes (talk) 09:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and most sources listed are from her personal website. I don't believe that she fits the notability guideline. MissPageantNews (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Film for which she performed songs is listed on IMDB but not reviewed anywhere. She has yet to release an album. No coverage exists of her in reliable sources. May become notable later but for now an article here is too soon. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 17:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't have the approriate references. Citing official websites is a conflict of interest. Unless other reliable sources can be found, the article will have to be deleted. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 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) 19:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Porter (Model)[edit]

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

Porn star without any evidence of notability. Page created by a friend so COI applies. No significant references despite the 32 item list of refs. They're all facebook, blogs, etc. Plenty of "worked with" and "worked for" but notability is not transferable. I could go on, but you get the idea. Dmol (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos for at least sourcing out appearances. No independent sources showing, fails the General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, who's hit the nail on the head. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troyjraucci (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC) i edited the references that are attached to this page. i have included the original list of references and any changes i have made. yes their are blogs but as you can see from below their were no other references because of different reasons or the fact that i was quoting him. their were 2 facebook pages not many differnt ones. has been lowered to 1. and saying their is not enough references is a smack in the face. i had 2 references for everything on this page because it kept getting taken down because of lack of references and then i was told that their were to many of them. and as a "friend" we talk on twitter... about this... Original list of references. 1. 1. ^ http://www.alsgaypornstars.com/chris-porter.html (not a blog. was used for reference.) 2. ^ http://www.chrisporterxxx.com/2011/02/yes-i-rap.html?zx=880b26e2412e5b11 (his personal blog because i quoted him.) 3. ^ https://store.ragingstallion.com/show.php?a=7430&st=1&sid=358 (not a blog. was used for reference) 4. ^ http://www.alsgaypornstars.com/chris-porter.html (not a blog. was used for reference) 5. ^ http://www.xxfactor.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2148&Itemid=0 (not a blog. was used for reference) 6. ^ http://suefairview.com/2010/12/27/chris-porter-by-joe-oppedisano/ 6- is a blog but a blog that chris doesn’t update. shows that he was named face of the year. joe oppedisanos websites are of pics he has taken. Couldn’t get a reference from his sites and his blog was taken down. 7. ^ http://www.facebook.com/oktmrw was updated to their website. 8. ^ http://www.queerpornnation.com/2010/12/falling-in-love-with-chris-porter/ removed because number 6 is a reference to him working with Joe. 9. ^ http://morphoman.blogspot.com/2010/10/chris-porter-by-jahn-hall.html is a mens fashion blog that chris doesn’t update himself. Is using the reference of him working with Jahn Hall. 10. ^ http://sfnude.blogspot.com/2010/11/chris-porter.html is a blog but is Ryan Scott's personal blog. Same problem as 6. 11. ^ http://www.qxmen.com/feature/chris-porter/ the magazines website showing the interview and photos taken for the interview 12. ^ http://morphoman.blogspot.com/2010/12/fiasco-6-part-2-chris-porter-part-2.html same as reference 9. 13. ^ http://suefairview.com/2011/06/18/samuel-colt-chris-porter-beautiful-magazine-cover-boys/ is a blog but shows the magazine cover. 14. ^ http://www.lucasentertainment.com/models/view/chris_porter/ (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 15. ^ http://www.dirtyboyvideo.com/promo/1609/index.html?dcwid=133845 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 16. ^ http://www.dominicford.com/model.php?PerformerID=75 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 17. ^ http://www.nakedsword.com/originals/players/chris-porter.aspx (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 18. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-michael-lucas-auditions-vol-33-pornstars-in-tr/p-307585-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 19. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-so-you-wanna-fuck/p-310930-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 20. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-depths-of-desire-part-1/p-311648-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 21. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-golden-gate-the-perfect-ten/p-323364-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 22. ^ https://www.gaydvd.com/show.php?m=3551&st=2&sid=53 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 23. ^ http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=one+twink+at+a+time/year=2010/one-twink-at-a-time.htm (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 24. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-stud-fuckers/p-321387-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 25. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-piss-army/p-313778-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 26. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-tattooed-twinks/p-316056-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 27. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-drenched-in-piss-county/p-318010-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 28. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-night-maneuvers/p-315201-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 29. ^ http://gayblog.aebn.net/featured-star/featured-star-chris-porter/ is a blog. Not updated by chris. Used as a reference. 30. ^ https://www.gaydvd.com/show.php?m=3134&w=103977&s=13&p=7&c=&tool=7&block_vod=1&show_extra=1&u=https://www.gaydvd.com/show.php?m=3134&program=7&original_program=7&ref=3709625&referrer=3709625&site=13&webmaster=103977&ipv4=1153041503&tour=0&campaign=0&console=0&ip=68.186.4.95 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 31. ^ http://www.tlavideo.com/gay-dont-ask-just-fuck/p-312422-3 (not a blog. Was used for reference.) 32. ^ http://www.facebook.com/pages/Saltwater/204831326203798?sk=info this is a indie film. They havent updated their http://www.imdb.com to show chris in the movie. If you look at their wall it says that they now have it up on imdb but the info isnt correct.[reply]

blogs 7 (all used for refereces in the correct way. chris doesnt post anything on those sites.)

Facebook pages 1 (because the people working on the film stated that they havent updated their imdb with the correct information.

Delete - Maybe the subject could (weakly) pass GNG per Hard Choice Awards, but the article shows an almost complete lack of reliable/non-trivial sources. Anyway, Chris Porter (Pornographic actor) would have been more correct than "model" --Cavarrone (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troyjraucci (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC) if you are unsure of the meaning of model you can go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(person) and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model and you will see that he does indeed fall into the guidelines of being called a model.[reply]

Delete - He's done nothing notable. Also, you list him as Samuel Colt's 'Spouse' but he is not his spouse. Nothing he has done is means for an article. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderwomanhero (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and WP:PORNBIO. No coverage by reliable sources. Awards won are not well known. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Hard Choice Awards do not pass WP:PORNBIO, and there appears to be no coverage by mainstream media either. OCNative (talk) 08:27, 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. — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WeDpro Inc.[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the article lacks reliable third party sources. sections look copy and pasted. created by a single purpose editor. I could not find evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:ORG. Many of these sources appear to originate from WeDpro's own web site or are documents written by Wedpro. There is also a deadlink to a blog-- woo. Looks like somebody needs some good old third-party coverage, but I wasn't able to find any. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 08:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The entire article is one big soapbox. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 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. Consensus is that the sources provided do not pass the GNG. Long rambling posts casting aspertions at the motives of the delete voters not only carry very little weight in a process where consensus is determined by policy based arguments but also made me seriously consider blocking the prepetrator for creating a battleground. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. sources are primary sources, nothing in gnews. also nominating for same reasons, just a list of results from a minor sporting event:

SuperLeague Elimination 2006
SuperLeague Austria 2003
SuperLeague Austria 2005
SuperLeague Germany 2003
SuperLeague Germany 2004
SuperLeague Germany 2005
SuperLeague Heavy Knockout 2005
SuperLeague Hungary 2006
SuperLeague Netherlands 2003
SuperLeague Netherlands 2004
SuperLeague Portugal 2005
SuperLeague Switzerland 2004
SuperLeague Tournament Turkey 2005
SuperLeague Italy 2004

LibStar (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whats wrong with you Lipstar? You have something against kickboxing articles or what. It doesn't even cross your mind to notify the persons who created the pages and the projects these articles are part of? It has to be some kinda violation what you doing. These are series of events held by a major kickboxing organization at a time in Europe, all were broadcast live in Eurosport featuring world champion fighters. What do you expect to find in current gnews? The last event was held in 2006, at the time these events were held they were the second biggest kickboxing organization next to K-1.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it needs coverage in reliable sources which these whole series of articles lacks. there is no rule that you have to notify article creators. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources for these events are primary sources, usually superleaguetv.com. Routine sports results do not satisfy the notability criteria. The question isn't whether SuperLeague is notable, it's whether routine news coverage of their events is notable. Jakejr (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All pages have secondary sources in order to show that it was not just from the SuperLeague site. This was done delibrately with the previous nomination in mind (which as mentioned already, was overturned). jsmith006 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2011

Keep It would have been nice to have been notified that these pages were up for deletion – if a fellow member hadn’t told me this could have been deleted without me knowing (which has seemingly happened to other kickboxing pages as well). Anyway, moving quickly on – the main page of this one (Thai & Kickbox SuperLeague) was previously nominated by Papaursa who I believe informed me of the changes and the deletion tag was removed as the sources were deemed acceptable. Removing all of the results page would therefore deem this page less informative as well as effecting dozens of kickboxing fighter pages such as Sahin Yakut, Albert Kraus, Shane Chapman, Dany Bill, Dmitry Shakuta etc – all of which are notable fighters who have won world titles and appeared on organizations such as K-1 and It's Showtime. The sources that have been used include a mixture of official results as well as comparable results from Dutch sites to give a balanced view and show that all results etc and that they are consistent. I am also concerned that if you get rid of these pages on the basis of being ‘sports results’ then surely hundreds of pages on wikipedia will be considered obsolete, including K-1 and It’s Showtime. I think that some of the rules on wikipedia are being followed over zealously and common sense should apply here 1) SuperLeague is/was a notable organization that ran into financial difficulties 2) the organization had a rooster of world and European champions and at the time was the most notable European promotion 3) getting rid of the pages would create a huge amount of red links throughout wikipedia 4) the way in which this has been nominated (no message from the person involved) should also point out the rather unscrupulous nomination methods by some.jsmith006 (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2011

I agree that some individual kickboxer articles but this not this sprawling series of comments. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Libster) 'Sprawling series of comments' - rather derogatory way to explain my work, especially because it's not actually a sprawling series of comments in anyones mind expect yourself. The way you put yourself across is really rather terrible and incredibly unconstructive.jsmith006 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2011

It's dangerous to suggest that "If you deleted this, you'd have to delete this other thing too!" Someone wandering by might decide to nom all those... Kevin (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is what is going on constantly at the moment. People who have little or no understanding of kickboxing or of the notability of events (repeated again - the biggest kickboxing promotion in Europe and 2nd behind K-1 in 2006 - this isn't a sunday football league) going around as authority figures nominating pages with little respect or feelings for the hard work involved. jsmith006 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011

Delete All, I do not see the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to indicate that any of these meet WP:GNG. The sources give are in most cases just routine coverage of results. Mtking (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any reason Mr Mtking why you are so keen to delete this yet the Mohamed ouali (Mixed Martial Artist) was given a weak delete with its CAPITAL LETTER TEXT, lack of any references and basically looking like it was thrashed out in 10 seconds. jsmith006 (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2011

Delete There is no evidence of notability. (Note: These articles have, by the admission of at least one of the editors, been created with the intention of using Wikipedia to "become a major source of information" on subjects without much coverage. This is totally contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to set the record straight, I never attempted to delete the SuperLeague page, although I did tag it for lack of notability and independent sources. Jsmith and I exchanged a number of posts on this topic. I know he's worked hard on these pages, but I don't see anything except routine results and I don't think those pass WP:GNG. I also realize many don't share my views--witness all the UFC event pages. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you nominated it for deletion which in my mind is roughly the same thing (but if I'm wrong I apologize). However, you did it civilly and were willing to discuss it with me so thank you for that. This other guy is on some sort of power trip and either seems to like rubbing people up the wrong way or just lacks any kind of social awareness and graces. This isn't an isolated incidence. Back to the point - these series of events are NOTABLE because SuperLeague was the second biggest promotion after K-1 back in 2006 and if you know anything about kickboxing just look at the kind of fighters on the roster - John Wayne Parr multiple world champion - Albert Kraus first ever K-1 MAX world champion - Dmitry Shakuta two time It's Showtime 77MAX world champion - it goes on and on. Not to mention coverage by Eurosport which for Europeans is one of the top sports channels. jsmith006 (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2011

I had dinner with the president of Mexico once. I haven't tried to make a Wikipedia article about that yet, though. But, non-sarcastically - notability is not inherited from participants, no matter who the participants are. If you can provide the kind of third party coverage that is required to meet the GNG or other relevant guideline, then please do so. Incidentally, I noticed you just created a bunch of articles about specific weight classes at a particular boxing tournament where the only sources you included are either primary sources or blogs. Please stop creating that sort of article until, at a minimum, this AfD is handled. Kevin (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe your getting a little touchy because there's traits of your buddy Libstar in yourself. I'm not going to be put off by you waving phantom WP this and WP that when my work is relevant and notable to kickboxing - so don't try and tell me what I can or can't do. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 9:32, 30 June 2011

Since the promotion was based in Austria here's some links from third party German language news media covering all the events in question that took place in Germany, Switzerland and Austria.

[23], [24], [25], [26], [27] From the last link you can find the countries the events were live or semi/live broadcast. Belgium, Germany, France, Poland, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Hungary, UK and Ireland, Brazil and Fox Sports of Australia.

At Kevin, you got no right to say the man what to create and what not. One more thing, for all of you deletionists who wanna make wikipedia better concentrate on articles like this, example Mohamed ouali (Mixed Martial Artist), never gonna hear any complains from me about deleting those, eventhou Mohamed Ouali was a notable fighter, the article looks like been created by a twelve year old without any references at all and all of a sudden the deletion specialists over here feel like giving a couple Weak Deletes, on the other hand in this case, a series of referenced sports event articles featuring world class athletes, taking place throughout Europe and being broadcast world wide, are being labeled without any hesitation delete all, just like that. It doesnt make any sense to me.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 100s of sporting events are broadcast live each day worldwide on ESPN and Fox Sports, this does not mean we create articles for them. Where is the third party coverage of each of these sporting events ie indepth reporting in major newspapers not connected to kickboxing. No such reporting exists. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way you said WE, you don't create any articles anyway.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (To Libstar) You seem to lack the comprehension that kickboxing is NOT American football or Baseball and I think it is ridiculous to apply the same logic of sources to them. You also lack the understanding of the subject matter to determine what is notable or not – while you keep going on about references and 3rd party sources I keep telling you that the event is NOTABLE in the world of kickboxing. Go onto to the SuperLeague website, you can tell it is a notable organization from the amount of TV coverage from across the world and check out some of the fighter’s pages – they are highly decorated champions in a range of styles. As the organization is no longer active (yes even notable organizations can run into financial difficulties) of course there is not going to be any results in Google News. This series of events isn't mickey mouse involving nobodies - these are important guys in kickboxing. jsmith006 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2011

It is common sense and common courtesy to avoid creating dozens of articles that have the same issues as articles that are currently being discussed in an AfD. It's not an unusual or offensive request. It allows discussion to be centralized in one place instead of spread out over dozens and dozens of AfD's. It also ensures that you don't put hours of effort in to something that is deleted for reasons already brought up at an ongoing AfD. BTW: you by definition do not need subject matter expertise to determine if something is notable by wikipedia's standards. You may not like our notability standard - but it is our notability standard - and you are not going to succeed here by arguing against the standard. (And I would agree that SuperLeague is notable, but there's a big jump between an organization being notable and each event they host being notable.) Kevin (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finally, a (semi decent) response, but this isn't JUST about notability or sources it's about the selective way some of our kickboxing pages are being targeted for nomination and it still hasn't been explained why a far weaker page (see Marty comment) is getting weak deletes while mine which is better sourced, better written, more relevant etc is getting nominated. On a human level I am willing to work with suggestions as I did with Papaursa (maybe it wasn't fully resolved but heh) but when people start nominating stuff in the way this has been done then it's not a surprise people got hot under the collar. Think of it as your car being towed away with no notificiation of how to get it back and then having to deal with some clerk that basically blanks you. Seems that a lot of you are fine with the way things are being done and I think alot of people are actually scared to contribute on this website as a result. I also didn't like what seemed like a 'veiled threat' you gave of 'someone might be watching and may decide to nominate these other pages' - not very cool. However, I'm willing to apologise if this was not your intention although I still think this whole thing is a clash of interests between two parties - one for creating pages one for deleting. jsmith006 (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2011

It wasn't at all a veiled threat, it was a serious observation. Pointing to the existence of other pages as a reason why an article shouldn't be deleted like that is never a good idea, because if it's a good comparison then someone who wants to delete the first article will see the second article and want to delete that too, and if it's a bad comparison then there's no value in it. So the best case is it won't help your argument and the worst case is someone will jump on the other pages and AfD them too - I have seen that happen pretty commonly when that kind of argument is used. Kevin (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize and retract that statement. You seem like a reasonable guy despite our disagreements so I appreciate you clearing that up. jsmith006 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2011

Keep Keep it, of course! Some guys who are completely out regarding this phenomen, are profiting of us, the nice writers, who update the kickboxing database and who work honestly in order Wikipedia to aim more visitors. and trust me, kickboxing fans are searching wikipedia database also! guys like Marty or JSmith are doing great job, please respect their work. Anyway, regarding this article SuperLeague's events were notable and this organisation is part of the history. I dont see why not have the history of kickboxing with its events from beginning to present. Albert Kraus, Yoshihiro Sato, Roberto Cocco, Dmitry Shakuta were fighting in this promotion. I need to repeat myself, some guys are doing points on our back, honest writers and workers here as volunteer, while they do this to hint positions at Wikipedia. Please leave us alone and respect our work, because we also respected the rules! What will happen if us, about 7-8 kickboxing writers, will decide to stop and decide to leave? i think wikipedia will lose a lot of kickboxing fans who are searching this database; just watch the views of each page! admins can verify that. Some guys even deleted our kickboxing project page!Cyperuspapyrus (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2011

you fail to address how WP:GNG is met. There is a notability standard that must be met. Saying "regarding this article SuperLeague's events were notable and this organisation is part of the history." is not advancing any case for keep as per WP:ITSNOTABLE. Also WP:NOHARM and WP:EFFORT are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to Cyperus) You know what Cypresus I was feeling like packing up and leaving for good yesterday I was so frustated. However, I'm not going to be put off by all of this because I think we have made wikipedia the top place for kickboxing information and precisely because of our coverage of events of organizations like K-1, It's Showtime and SuperLeague. I feel very positive about our contribution. jsmith006 (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2011

Unfortunately that reads as though you are using Wikipedia to publicise information which has little coverage elsewhere, which is a reason for deletion and not, as you seem to think, a reason for keeping. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate or not as you may think my comment is, the fact is that kickboxing DOES GET COVERAGE just not on the scale that you guys seem to deem acceptable (which seems to be New York Times coverage). If the second biggest promotion in world kickboxing in 2006 can't be seen as notable to you well we might as well give up and stop creating altogether. I haven’t got some sort of ulterior motive here and I’m not going to start creating pages on pages on amateur fights down at the local leisure centre – through I wouldn’t be surprised if they got a couple of ‘weak deletes’ and ‘make a few improvements and it’ll be okay’jsmith006 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2011.

jSmith, you can't pack up anything, coz thats what he wants. To further break things down for Admins who will be making the decisions, to let someone delete series of referenced articles of major kickboxing events featuring world class professional athletes, that were broadcast all over the world by an established premier European promotion at a time, by simply saying "no gnews hits", will green light this guy for a major deletion craze for at least half of all the martial arts pages here in wikipedia. It has to be taken in consideration that martial arts in general does not get a coverage on major newspapers, unlike soccer, baseball etc. And that does not make them less notable. There was a List of kickboxing organizations article here but was deleted again, it listed more than 135 countries with internationally recognized kickboxing organizations all over the world, contrary what Watson stated, that we are just some few editors working on the overall non-notable subject by wikipedia standards. Libstar listed these articles up on a claim, "no gnews hits" and "only primary sources" and both were not true. There was gnews hits and I listed links from not a "primary source".Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the sources you've provided do not fit indepth coverage required for WP:GNG nor WP:RS. they merely confirm that certain events were broadcast. superleague may be notable but individual events fail to demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. the endless debate of these events being WP:ITSNOTABLE is in the absence of independent indepth sources covering this event not confirmations of TV coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You’re the one that’s the cause of this endless debate with your steadfast determination to nominate any kickboxing page which does not have sources which you consider to be notable and the event which you consider not to be notable – when what we are saying is that is notable. You have also refused to acknowledge any responsibility for the way in which this has been done. I have jumped through hoops to try and get the right references (after discussion with Papurusa), scouring the net for references only to still find stuff is nominated. Marty has provided foreign language sources but still you say it isn’t right and it does look like your determined to stop people working on kickboxing because you don’t appear think the sport is very relevant and seem to be targeting a solid series of events. Think of SuperLeague as a house – you are trying to remove all of the bricks in one section – leaving the house weaker. Do you think I want to be here arguing with you when I could be working on some new pages - of course I don't - but something has to be done because I think you are going to try and get rid of more and more pages growing with confidence as you do while pretending that your doing it for the good of wikipedia. jsmith006 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2011

Comment As far as I can see, much of the argument for "keep" really amounts to "keep, because kickboxing enthusiasts say that it is notable, and anyone who suggests deleting must be a wicked person out to get kickboxers".

JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To above - that’s because you’re clearly just a wicked person who wants to get rid of our pages. Joking aside – this is not the primary motive for us. These series of pages are 1) notable because they were part of an event that was second most notable behind K-1 at the time – think It's Showtime now 2) the amount of TV coverage of the event and the staging in multiple European countries 3) the pages are well written (in my humble opinion) 4) there are large numbers of relevant links e.g. notable fighters 5) there are sources which have once again been rejected because they aren’t on a grandiose scale as with MLB or NBA (not possible due to the nature of kickboxing). The reason we are getting annoyed is because of the consistant way one of the deletionists is targeting our pages without notification and also with the way other pages (maybe less threatening to you guys for some reason) are getting weak deletes – none of whom our involved has explained your reasoning - maybe because you've had no opposition. You think this is just about us being victims – well I could say some of you guys are overly zealous and clearly not even being consistent with it. You can try and make us appear like emotional buffoons but I think its just a flat track method by (some of) you guys to try and get your own way. jsmith006 (talk) 13:00, 1 July

I'll add to that if it wasn't clear - TO THE GUYS WHO GAVE WEAK DELETES TO THE OTHER ARTICLE MENTIONED IN THE COMMENTS ABOVE (MOHAMMED OUALI) PLEASE COULD YOU EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 13:09, 1 July

I can't comment for others, but I can tell you why I put "Comment" first, later replaced with "Delete". It's because there were definite well-recognized claims of notability (e.g., WKA and WAKO world champion). Those clearly meet WP:GNG, but WP:V was a problem, so I wanted to give an opportunity to source the claims. It may be that the others were torn between the claims and the lack of sources. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you recognise that being a world champion is a sign of notability but having nine world champions fighting on the same event is not – again within a promotion that was the second largest behind K-1. Also did you think that having absolutly no references is okay because they have apparantly won the WKA belt? You need to realise (and I realise you'reone of the better guys) that this rigid and contradictory standard most deletionists have is resulting in bad articles being given a yellow light (don’t know if you have them in the states – in UK its between Red and Green on traffic lights) while my series is being given the red light. I also know you can’t stand event pages and as decent a guy as you are, I believe this is what is clouding your judgement on this issue. However, I will repeat the way you do things is a much better way than some of your fellows. jsmith006 (talk) 08:18 2 July

No, I didn't think it was okay to not have references, but I wanted to give the authors a chance to improve the article with reliable sources before voting delete. Note that I haven't voted in this discussion. I've been at events with numerous world champions, but while they're notable I don't consider the event notable unless it receives independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legend Yoshihiro Sato of Japan was part of the SuperLeague. This organisation was important at the start of the new millenium when K-1 was still in vogue. Ikazuyoshi (talk), 1st July 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC). — Ikazuyoshi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No matter who has participated, we need evidence that the subjects of the articles themselves are notable. Notability is not inherited from someone associated with the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's multiple evidence that the events were notable but you’re dismissing it (see Marty's last comment) and simply repeating yourself over and over (hence me repeating myself over and over). Do you really think that a series of events that are broadcast on at least 14 sports channels across the world including Fox Sports (Australia) and BSKYB and Eurosport is not an indicator of notability – I doubt the Tiddlywinks world championships would get 14 tv channels across the world (because it’s not very notable or entertaining – sorry Tiddlywinks fans). And you say that notable fighters don’t make the events notable – fair enough if it was one or two – but there are numerous world champions that have competed at the SAME EVENTS and regularly – take SuperLeague Tournament Turkey 2005 at least 9 world champions took part, having won prestigious belts such as the WFCA (which someone deleted without any of us knowing – for the second time), WKN and W.K.A., at the next Dmitry Shakuta (future It's Showtime champion, 8 time world champion), Clifton Brown (5 time world champion inc. WMC), Roberto Cocco four time world champion, at the next Şahin Yakut (Its SHowtime trophy winner, European champion), José Reis (K-1 MAX regional champion, WFCA world champion), Cosmo Alexandre (Its Showtime champion, multiple world champion) – it’s a who’s who of kickboxing and the belts won aren't fought between nobodies. Events were also held in places like Austria, Italy, Germany and Turkey and shipped in fighters like Yoshihiro Sato and John Wayne Parr who wouldn’t normally fight in Europe – proving that this was a promotion with some clout and influence that spread beyond the continent Marty’s already provided you with details as have I if you have even looked at the pages you are nominating – it doesn’t take a kickboxing expert to understand that this was a notable series of events in the context of the sport (2nd largest organization after K-1 at the time) unless you happen to think only American sports or sports with American coverage are notable or that G News is the deity of all things notable. PS you guys are going to have such good kickboxing knowledge soon you can come and join us and create some more pages. jsmith006 (talk) 23:11, 1 July

Comment Lipstar above, i wasn't expecting you to admit anything but someone as biased view as you have on the subject in question, to actually say that "Superleage is maybe notable" is probably as good as it gets. In that case you are already contradicting yourself by trying to mass delete all those articles, the civil practice by wikipedia standards and for the respect of other editors, should have a tag for merge and we would have taken it from there.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing what keeps blowing my mind about your actions, lets say for example, I'm gonna go over to a Fencing project, a subject i don't know anything about, pick up some random articles and start nominating them for deletion because gnews gives no hits therefore they are non-notable. You seriously think thats alright. It doesn't even cross my mind to come up with something like that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question for admins, what is this gnews requirement the dude is throwing out, I didn't get any decent hits on pradal serey either, maybe Lip should put this up for deletion as well, its only been practiced in southeast asia for only about 1000 years.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also for admins (Marty first - had a page edit clash there) - In reference to this deletion being a green light to Libstar just check out this guys contributions since this discussion. He’s already nominated two more K-1 pages without (once again) notifying the page creator – you’ve really got to wonder whether this is some personal issue he has with the kickboxing guys. The way I look at it, there’s a certain way of doing things and he is clearly quite unfazed by upsetting anyone (yes I know it’s not an official rule but anyone can see it’s causing un-necessary tension). Do you think deleting this series of pages will calm this guy down – no he’ll just go and nominate more and more pages leaving this part of Wikipedia like a crumbling swiss cheese with more holes than you can count. We’ve also lost pages without even knowing (WFCA, list of kickboxing organizations) and having even had a chance to defend them – I don’t know if this was the same guy – but there seems to be a culture of this going on and it’s very worrying. I understand that you need to keep rubbish articles from being created and I am all for that but all of the articles I have created have been based on notable organizations in the sphere of kickboxing and have been referenced as well as I can – read through this article and look at the reasons two of the deletionists have for a much weaker page and compare that with their responses here (and they still haven't provided me with their reasoning - correction Pap just has but the other two haven't). Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 08:07, 2 July

Personal demons bro, I'm telling you, he stepped into a wrong muaythai gym in his neighborhood and got hit with something real hard, according to him probably by something non-notable, not a gnews worth.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while it's fresh in my mind. To all deletionists who say a event is not notable because of its participants (Kevin comment) that can not be true. Do you think an NBA game between the Chicago Bulls and LA Lakers would be notable if nobodies were playing for the team in that specific game - of course it wouldn't be notable - it's the players as well as the team that make something notable, so I don't believe you can discount the importance of the participants as a counter argument jsmith006 (talk) 08:41, 2 July

if there ever was a case of WP:BLUDGEON in an AfD this is it. endless trying to respond without providing evidence of reliable sources does not advance notability. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Spinning Backfist~~ Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku Delete You can have as many top stars as you want at a competition, but it doesn't matter if it's not covered by multiple, reliable, independent sources. Also, please don't reply to my comment with assumptions about who I am or what my motivations are as you did for LibStar. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 08:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to accuse you - it's quite obvious ever since you got scared in the last big deletion Super Kombat and started jumping in with this isn't a vote. Your telling us not to reply with assumptions and motivations yet you don't blink an eyelid when your buddy Libstir goes around nominating pages without even notifying people. You really need to think about this from our viewpoint - imagine you had done a pretty good painting which was hanging on the wall and then someone comes and puts a big scratch through and says 'you better remove that' - this is how your friend does things. Oh and well done for the spinning backfist delete - that was actually quite amusing jsmith006 (talk) 09:52, 2 July

wow spinning backfist, Jethrobot is picking up some kickboxing lingo, old school but, notable for sure.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before these guys are gonna help us with our kickboxing pages – they’ve had quite an education these last few days jsmith006 (talk) 09:57, 2 July

Look, I'm not against martial arts or anything. I do some MMA in my spare time (though I don't claim to be advanced or anything). It sounds like you two are trying to take up an "ignore all rules" argument (yes, this is a policy at Wikipedia). You might consider reading this essay on what this policy means to some editors, though. But you might consider using this to your advantage here. I know this is weird because I just voted delete, but I want to show that I'm trying to discuss things here in good faith. I just don't think there's enough coverage independent of the subject, and I try to uphold the policy of independent sources where I am able. I don't really know LibStar (I only started editing regularly here about two weeks ago) and I don't know either of you well enough to be biased against you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 09:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Jethrobot - you aren't the source of the problem and I'm willing to listen to sensible (and courteous) comments. You can see I can admit when I'm wrong and I try and help all new editors but I won't sit back, roll over and expose my belly and let someone delete my pages esp. when I believe they are notable and valid within the world of kickboxing and esp. not when it is done in a sneaky, duplicitous manner. The guy involved is right now going through all of the K-1 regional events and when they’re gone, what next. Any new editors watching these comments are going to think, why bother, if every time I create a page, it could be gone without warning.jsmith006 (talk) 10:30, 2 July

Jethrobot - Have read that article and it was quite enlightening - thank-you. I seriously do believe that Libstar needs to have a look "Don’t follow written rules mindlessly” but I don't think we are breaking any rules - we have a number of sources (which have been shot down without consideration), the events are notable etc etc. I also believe that we have also clearly justified in our opposition to the deletion of these pages in that it sets a precedent for other notable pages to be deleted because certain individuals disagree on what is notable - typing into GNews isn't a good way of doing this & please Libstar could you try and offer some constructive critism instead of your extremely brief posts. Some of the pages you guys have nominated I agree in on but definately not anything to do with K-1, It's Showtime, SuperKombat or SuperLeague as these are/were the big boys in kickboxing. If I had created a series of pages on minor UK Muaythai events (I'm from UK) then I could understand these nominations - proof I don't think everything deserves a page like Watson would try to confer.jsmith006 (talk) 12:24, 2 July

Hey Smith, these guys have been joking all along, it was just us who took it seriously. And Jethrobot, don't ever throw a spinning backfist against opponent, if blocked correctly you gonna break your forearm. When i was in thailand it a was a big no no. Only a few pro athletes like Dzhabar Askerov can do that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:10, 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 - the game certainly exists and is played. However, there is unanimity that it doesn't meet notability standards so 'delete'. TerriersFan (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy suicide football[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Seems to be some sort of cross between WP:NFT and WP:VSCT; that is some relatively minor gaming phenomenon, and this article was created to give the phenomenon more publicity. No evidence that this game is independently notable outside of the very limited number of websites that play it. Jayron32 04:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N no news coverage, nothing to indicate the subject is notable. Note there is a related MfD here for the userspace draft. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Once they have been written about in Sports Illustrated or something of that vein, we can have an article but right now it's too early. Dismas|^(talk) 08:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - clearly non-notable and fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't get any notable mentions in Google and Yahoo search results. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Vault (wiki)[edit]

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

Clearly, this website is not notable and fails WP:WEB. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some independent coverage cited in the article. Not much, but probably enough to clear the baseline notability standards. --Jayron32 04:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's one Wikia's most popular wikis, which has gotten independent coverage from multiple notable sources, so I don't see how it's any less notable than WoWWiki or Wookieepedia. I've added some more citations for The Vault's releases of canceled project info. Ausir (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DavidSSabb (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ausir. If the nominator is so inclined, he can bring up weak points on the talk page of the article rather than propose deletion of a legitimate and notable article. --Charitwo ^(talk) 16:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:21, 28 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) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has an adequate amount of reliable sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't clearly see how it's not notable seeing the amount of references it has and traffic it gets. 98.236.11.198 (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout nominator. Cited sources clearly exceed WP:GNG and WP:WEB. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:13, 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. J04n(talk page) 05:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering psychology[edit]

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

Article does not demonstrate notability of the subject. This material is comprehensively covered by Ergonomics, Human factors and other articles. Development of this article has been abandoned. Dolphin (t) 03:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with dolphin. In addition to the material already covered under ergonomics, Engineering Psychology seems to also be largely synonymous with the term Cognitive ergonomics. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —I Jethrobot (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does demonstrate the notability of the topic - it references an entire book about it. Here's an entry on the topic in a respectable encyclopedia to show what we might aspire to: Engineering Psychology. Warden (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 10:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a good article; however, it is not Engineering psychology, the entire book used as a source is about human factors psychology. Perhaps this is the potato, potato debate. Nevertheless, despite the depth of the article, it is repetitious and covered in a different field of psychology. --Alexeink (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Alexeink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Various government organizations have a department for it. Add in the word "university" to the search and you'll find mention of various universities that have a department dedicated to it. [28] Clearly notable if its taught in universities. Dream Focus 10:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect: article is currently solely a WP:DICTDEF and appears to be a WP:CFORK of Cognitive ergonomics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's notable, and fine as a stub. Wxidea (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Warden said.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ergonomics. While this article admirably begins with the negative definition "Engineering psychology is not the equivalent of ergonomics," looking at the references that are available online it, err, is the equivalent. I'm puzzled by several things here..

The External links to Master's in Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology was a very strange one, and did not conform to the guideline, so I've removed it.
Is "Division 21 of the American Psychological Association" a reliable source?
- It's "about" page says "Website created by the Clemson University HFES Student Chapter."
- There is the "Franklin V. Taylor Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology." I picked one winner at random (2003) and saw th"Dr. Boehm-Davis has served as the President of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and of Division 21 (Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology) of the American Psychological Association." So I'm tempted right away to see this as the typical incestous interdeparmental rename-game that sadly is required to secure funding.
The next reference, Roscoe, S. N. (1997). The adolescence of engineering psychology, begins with "Engineering psychology is the science of human behavior in the operation of systems." While this is slightly more concise than the definition at the begining of our article on Ergonomics, "the study of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and its cognitive abilities" they are in affect, identical.
Finally, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance is an offline reference and I am unable to comment upon it directly. It's heavily cited but that tells us nothing about how it is differentiated from Ergonomics or human factors.
Even if that final tome turns out to be weighty indeed, it's a single book. Despite what was written above, having "an entire book" written about a subject is not the hurdle for inclusion.

Adding these all up, there does not exist "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to justify this as a stand-alone article.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain the difference between Engineering psychology and Cognitive engineering? Seems like this is another similar term that has its own stub article. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot, but I have a fun game we can play. Let's count all the articles that appear indistinguishable from the current article:

Even if we were to redirect it, I'm not sure where. We might consider making this term a disambiguation page for this very reason. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive engineering appears to be just an alternative name for Cognitive ergonomics, the former is an unsourced stub, so I simply redirected it to the latter. Human factors appears to be simply a WP:CFORK of ergonomics (and both are linked to in the lead of Cognitive ergonomics in any case), so should probably be merged. I therefore see no need for a disambiguation page, let alone one under the title 'Engineering psychology'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the nay-sayers seem to have addressed the source which I cited above: The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. This describes the various terms as "cognates" - related but different. For another scholarly discussion of the inter-relationship of these various topics, see Engineering Psychology. None of this amounts to a reason to delete. Rather it confirms that discussion of the relationship between these related fields of study is itself notable and so we should cover it. Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It then goes on to state that "...differences among disciplines are often subtle, and professional in separate disciplines often conduct very similar work." Given that this article is simply a WP:DICTDEF, I would suggest that this is easily close enough for a redirect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin - Due to an edit I simply cannot explain this had no header for a few hours. Please let it run a few extra hours past its due date to compensate. And thank you to Dolphin for letting me know. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The college class is called Engineering Psychology. It is taught in universities around the world. The article explains the difference between it and ergonomic. You can also see the dictionary definition of ergonomics. [29] Engineering things for a proper psychological effect on people, is different than simply making a really comfortable chair for them. Different things. The article could be expanded by someone who took the class and knows about it, to list examples of what's found in the textbooks they use. The history of it, how it is taught, notable people involved in it, etc. Dream Focus 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this is different from cognitive ergonomics (which is NOT "simply making a really comfortable chair"), how? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start a merge discussion there and get some feedback from those that understand this. The proper name for the field is Engineering Psychology, since that is what they have been giving college degrees in for decades. Being taught in universities around the world makes this notable. If it is determined something else is similar, then a merge discussion separate from this AFD, with people knowledgeable about this subject participating, would be the proper way to proceed. Dream Focus 14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I am not precluded from discussing a merger or (as the current article is nothing but a WP:DICTDEF) a redirect on an AfD. (ii) Last I checked, WP:Article titles did not privilege the names of college courses over other alternate titles for a topic (and even if it did, that'd be no reason not to allow cognitive ergonomics to WP:USURP this title). (iii) Being notable does not stop this article from being either a WP:NOT DICTDEF or a WP:CFORK -- both of which are valid issues to consider at an AfD.
I find nothing either compelling or praiseworthy in your basis-less demands that we curtail the discussion in this AfD to only the aspects of the article you wish to discuss. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If universities give degrees to people in Engineering Psychology, then surely there are college level textbooks written about it, proving it is notable. Google book search shows 26,100 results so its a bit much to sort through. Dream Focus 15:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few relevant guidelines to help...

WP:DICTDEF - Does not apply. A full article, even if a few paragraphs, will say much more than a dictionary definition. The article is not about the usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
WP:DEMOLISH (Don't demolish the house while it's still being built) - applies. If this is a course, just because an editor is ignorant of the subject is no reason to remove it.
WP:BARE and WP:MINIMUM - Does not apply. The course is above the bare threshold for notability for a course or field of study or research.
WP:IDL - Applies. Dislike for an article is not sufficient to delete it.
WP:IS & WP:INDY - Applies. There are 3rd party sources.
WP:JNN - applies. Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis. The topic sounds very notable, including the thousands of google hits noted by User:DreamFocus
WP:OVERZEALOUS - Applies. The practice of "dying to" get an article deleted
WP:UGLY - Applies. Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion. The article could be improved considerably, as it says very little now.
WP:POTENTIAL - applies. Articles about new and multidisciplinary courses and fields of study are are useful for Wikipedia, and this article has room for improvement and cross linking to other wikipedia articles. This includes articles that differentiate between subtle-difference in fields like Engineering psychology and Cognitive engineering, and cognitive ergonomics, and cross-link the articles. They sound different, even if they have similarities. People in good faith would not add all these articles if they were all the same. Nuance has a place. If they are in fact exact synonyms, then a merger is appropriate. Wxidea (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Complete bollocks:

The article is NOT "a few paragraphs" it is a SINGLE paragraph that does NO MORE than SIMPLY DEFINE "Engineering psychology". It is a WP:DICTDEF.
The article is currently nearly SIX YEARS OLD. When can we expect a second paragraph and some not-purely-definitional material? The 22nd century? Claiming that the article is still in the process of "being built" and that WP:DEMOLISH applies (more than it would apply to any article under AfD) is a heroic stretch.
"WP:BARE and WP:MINIMUM" are the one and same thing, so I don't see why Wxidea feels it necessary to mention them twice -- and as NOBODY ELSE brought them up, I don't see why Wxidea feels it necessary to mention them (only to state that they don't apply) at all.
An unsubstantiated and vague claim of WP:IDL is simply WP:Assume bad faith.
Again "WP:IS" IS "WP:INDY" -- and nobody is arguing lack of third party sourcing.
Nobody has argued that the topic is "just not notable", no Wxidea, WP:JNN DOES NOT apply. Try to read an AfD's comments before making utterly irrelevant complaints! (WP:Assume bad faith, strike two)
Nominating a six-year-old, purely-definitional single-paragraph article is hardly WP:OVERZEALOUS. If the nominator was "'dying to' get an article deleted", they'd be long-dead by now.
WP:UGLY does not apply, as there quite simply isn't enough there to be "ugly" or pretty -- and in any case, nobody's making that argument -- you're simply assuming that they're thinking it. (WP:Assume bad faith, strike three -- YOU'RE OUT)
As for WP:POTENTIAL (i) there is so little there already that rebuilding from scratch is no great problem, (ii) after six years, there does not seem to be much likelihood that anything further will be done anytime soon & (iii) in any case this topic (or one indistinguishable to the layman) has already fulfilled its 'potential' at cognitive ergonomics. I would therefore suggest a pragmatic and realistic view of WP:POTENTIAL.
And finally, I would point out that in and among all these irrelevancies and tangential guidelines, Wxidea has ignored the elephant in the room, the argument that WP:CFORK applies.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep for now and get this issue into RfC~~ ~~In light of the arguments above from Wxidea, Dream Focus, and Warden, I've decided to withdraw my arguments to delete this.~~ The term appears to get a lot of use in peer-reviewed journals within psychology. Whether this field of study is sufficiently different enough from cognitive ergonomics or cognitive engineering, or how this content should be organized, are not matters we're going to figure out here. For now, I think it's best to keep the article and get some more feedback-- we might considering asking WikiProject Psychology to swing on by. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that this AfD is already more than ten times the size of the article, in spite of the fact that the article has been in existence for 400 times as long. I would therefore suggest that we simply go ahead and delete/redirect the blasted thing and not bother wasting any more time on it (with an RfC and further disproportionate discussion) unless and until somebody can actually be bothered to come up with some non-definitional content, which clearly distinguishes it from cognitive ergonomics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and RfC I agree with Hrafn's rebuttals above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC may indeed be appropriate on the issue of which out of 'Engineering psychology', 'Cognitive ergonomics' & 'Cognitive engineering' is the more appropriate alternate title for this general topic area (unless and until there is sufficient material and clarity to separate them out). I suspect however that nobody will care much (I must admit that I don't). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on the subject of 'there are university courses with this title so there should be an article with this title' I would point out that I've seen the subject of 'Computer programming and Computer algorithms' taught under the title of 'Computer science', 'Information science' and 'Software engineering'. Whilst I am perfectly certain that somebody can find a schema for differentiating these 'topics' (and most probably a dozen others then come forth to argue for alternate, conflicting schemas likewise differentiating them), I see no problem with putting them all together under the same title unless and until there is (i) sufficient content to support multiple articles (ii) a clear, sourced articulation as to the difference between the sub-topics. I therefore reiterate my opinion that there is no reason not to redirect this article as a ((R from alternative name)) until such substantive content and sourced-differentiation exists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An RFC might be appropriate, but that it not the issue here. Warden makes a good point that another encyclopedia lists the subject. I am not swayed by the notion that the existence of uni level courses established notability, as such are not part of WP:RS. I am swayed by the following:

There is/was a Journal of Engineering Psychology

A book: Howell, William Carl. Engineering psychology; current perspectives in research (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts [1971])

Another book: Wickens, Christopher D. Engineering psychology and human performance (Columbus : Merrill, 1984)

Also, I note that the ergonomics article suggests that a separate article may be warranted, characterizing Engineering psychology as a field of Ergnomics: "Engineering psychology is an interdisciplinary part of ergonomics and studies the relationships of people to machines, with the intent of improving such relationships" and "Engineering psychology is an applied field of psychology concerned with psychological factors in the design and use of equipment". In regard to Hrafn's comment up top that this is a dictionary definition and that the article hasn't been worked on recently, these strike me as cleanup issues not related to this AFD. Finally, that "...differences among disciplines are often subtle, and professional in separate disciplines often conduct very similar work" is no surprise to anyone with an academic background. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that I pointed out the article's age, not as part of my recommendation to delete/redirect, but only in response to Wxidea's baseless accusations of WP:DEMOLISH & WP:OVERZEALOUS and their invocation of WP:POTENTIAL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I started a small section in the article differentiating the two. Maybe you can expand it if you have a few minutes. Wxidea (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few sentences differentiating this from applied cognitive psychology based on the Stanton article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 15:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in attempting to differentiate this topic from Cognitive ergonomics (CE), the article now states that "this topic is about the science of human behaviour and capability in terms of how it affects design and operation of systems." Unfortunately over at CE it states its goals to include using "emerging branch of ergonomics that places particular emphasis on the analysis of cognitive processes" to enhance "user-centered design of human-machine interaction and human-computer interaction" & "design of information technology systems that support cognitive tasks". How does that not involve using "the science of human behaviour and capability" to affect "design and systems"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'm not understanding. The question before us is whether an article on this topic can be sourced, and apparently, it can. The sources should be our guide on dealing with the specific content of a given article, and your question strikes me as a good one for the article's talk page, but not here. Am I missing something? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't understanding. AfDs can evaluate a number of questions. A question that has been raised in this AfD is that of whether this topic is a WP:CFORK of Cognitive ergonomics. This is a germane topic for discussion on an AfD, so NO I WILL NOT TAKE IT TO THE ARTICLE'S TALKPAGE And you and DreamFocus can ruddy well STOP asking me to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, calm down and have a cup of tea, there is no need to shout.

I don't think it's a fork, I think this is an example, one of many, where a field of study overlaps with others. Such overlap is very common in interdisciplinary subjects, such as Literary Theory and Comparative Literature. Not being an expert, I'm relying to some degree on my intuition, but to a large degree on the fact that independent and reliable sources cover this subject, regardless of that overlap. Now, if you have sources that say that this topic is the same thing as Cognitive ergonomics, by all means bring them here, otherwise, I'll simply stand by my !vote, as it seems to me that simple fact that some sources use the one term and others the other suggest there is a distinction, either historical, political, or in differences in what the terms mean precisely. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I get repeatedly told to take germane discussion off an AfD, and get a host of wild accusations flung in my general direction (Wxidea 04:06, 2 July 2011), I tend to start to get a tad irritable. The problem with your argument is that (i) 'Overlap' is explicitly a criterion for a WP:MERGE & (ii) nobody has, as yet, demonstrated that there is any non-overlapping 'field of study' (let alone a significant amount of non-overlapping topic area, such as would warrant a second article). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden references a tertiary source which makes the distinction, and we can use tertiary sources for a broad overview. Overlap is a criterion of merge, but I have not yet seen any sources addressing that issue directly. And in terms of Wxidea 04:06, 2 July 2011, I ask you, what "host of wild accusations"? I see a list of links to guidelines and policies (which I largely think are irrelevant to this discussion, or at least no more relevant than the length of the article in its current form compared to this discussion, or the length of time the article has existed, or the length of these discussions, I might add), but no accusations. As for the problem you see with my argument, the problem I see with your argument is that WP:MERGE is neither a guideline nor a policy, and overlap is a "reason" for merging two article, not an argument for why an article should be deleted, and I think the source Warden presented suggested they may be reasons for separate articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "Warden references a tertiary source which states that "...differences among disciplines are often subtle, and professional in separate disciplines often conduct very similar work" and does not explicitly state what the difference between these fields is. (ii) WP:DEMOLISH, WP:IDL, WP:JNN, WP:OVERZEALOUS, WP:UGLY -- accusations of misconduct or making illegitimate arguments. (iii) That there is a "good reason" to merge is an argument for merging. You're just playing semantics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i. No, it doesn't, but it does say "Cognates of engineering psychology include human factors, ergonomics, applied experimental psychology, and cognative engineering. All have the common goal of improving socio-technical systems, but each does so with a different approach...", which underscores that they are different enough to distinguish, in any overview, ii., no, those were references to policies and guidelines and essays, and it is standard procedure to point to such in a civil manner as a way of asking editors to think about what they are saying. I don't think those particular ones are helpful to the discussion, but I think that taking those as accusations is a bit too much. However, if you feel attacked, please bring it up somewhere else, because it's not appropriate here, and iii., I'm not playing, but yes, this is a discussion about what terms mean, so I accept semantics as an accurate characterization. But take a look at 1, 2 (in which Hendrick asserts that cognative ergonomics sprung from software design on page 38, and in which Zionchenko and Munipov point to roots of Engineering psychology to cockpit design in the 1940s), and 3, which describes the two as "symbiotic fields" and underscores that there is disagreement as to the degree of overlap and orientation and whether or not there is a distinction, and 4, which suggest that cognative ergonomics may be unnecessary in light of psychological engineering and other similar fields. So there is a lot of variety in how the fields are viewed, with some suggesting there is no real distinction, and others suggesting significant differences, and all of which are nice reliable academic sources. Certainly it seems to me that we can have a decent article on this subject, as there are a large number of sources that use the term and there is a disagreement to document. It may turn out that a merge is appropriate, but that's something that should be discussed after doing some research at leisure, rather than under the gun of AFD. A simple "let's just merge them and have lunch" seems clearly inappropriate to me, but that's just my opinon. An' that's all I have to say about that riht now. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Pervasive and tendentious WP:Wikilawyering, and a complete failure to distinguish Engineering psychology from Cognitive ergonomics (as opposed to the mere assertion that a distinction exists). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no dispute that the topic, "Engineering Psychology", is notable. There is no dispute that there is material that is encyclopedic. The learned argument that the material is or could be or should be covered under other topics is beyond the scope of this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 06:11, 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 keep. — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Scott[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. One apparently significant role. Editor disputing notability tag points to a minor role in No Strings Attached which does not show up in the plot summary in that article or the expensive cast list given. Too soon. SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —I Jethrobot (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One significant role, which is being one of the lead characters on a series on Disney TV. If you go on the Ant Farm website and click on "characters", there's five listed - one of those is Lexi, who is played by Stefanie Scott. Tabercil (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, as I said, she had one significant role. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - SummerPhD (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actress has had roles in multiple films that I think satisfy WP:ENT. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 June 2011

Comment - Yes, as I said, she had one significant role. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - SummerPhD (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A named role in a SAG film is notable and significant. --Ozgod (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please clarify. Other than the role in A.N.T. Farm, which role is it you feel is significant? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a loose interpretation of WP:ENT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If by a "loose interpretation" you mean "ignoring", please say so. There is no way to interpret "multiple" so that it means "one" or "significant" so that it means "minor". If your intention is to ignore the guideline, say so and explain why. Otherwise, all bets are off and we'll have articles on every actor who ever lands any role in anything. "Joe Blow, best known for his only role as 'guy holding newspaper' in Podunk, WI community theater's production of..." - SummerPhD (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weak. Editors keep trying to add better known actors to her bio which is suspicious. If she is so important, why do editors have to hype her bio? I can see why the nomination was made but she does seem to have played multiple roles. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, she has played multiple role. WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."- SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let me see if I can get this through to people. The guideline that applies here is WP:ENT. That guideline calls for more than one significant role in notable productions. Yes, she has one notable role; she needs multiple significant roles. Yes, she has multiple roles; she needs multiple significant roles. If you want to keep the article despite the guideline, juust say so and explain why you believe we should ignore the guideline in this case. She clearly does not have multiple significant roles, so she clearly fails WP:ENT. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for having one significant ongoing role and several lesser ones. The Steve 07:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your !vote. Now, please explain why you have decided to ignore the guideline. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it IS a guideline, and only a guideline. AFD is for those things that do not fall cleanly under the guideline, and I feel that her work as an entertainer is significant enough to be included. Clearly you feel the other way, and that's great! Now we get to sit back and see what the consensus is. The Steve 07:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you feel we should ignore the consensus/guideline because you want to ignore it. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point, the consensus is running 5-1 in favour of keep. And there is a TV movie which she's appearing in for Disney which (if IMDB is to be believed) is in post-production at this point. Only issue is all I can find out about her part in the movie is just that she's in it so I don't know if it's a bit part or one of the leads. Tabercil (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 4 not votes to keep from users who don't seem to understand the guideline and 1 not vote to keep from a user who wants to ignore the guideline because ze wants to ignore it. Whatever. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem so interested in my motivations, no, its because I feel that some number of minor roles is the equivalent, in fame or notoriety terms, as one major role. This, however, is not addressed at all in the guideline, despite the fact that there could be an actor who is famous enough to be included, but might have NO "significant" roles at all (also - where is the bar for significance? I'm going to take a wild guess and say that your "significant role" is different from my "significant role"). So I am not ignoring the guideline (or perhaps, not *completely* ignoring the guideline ;)), but I personally have an addendum that says "X minor roles = 1 significant role" and I will vote accordingly. The Steve 06:58, 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. J04n(talk page) 05:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parking In Motion[edit]

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

Precautionary afd given the large amount of self-published sources. At best borderline notable so far. My biggest concern is based off a report at WP:COI/N which alleges the article's primary authors are also the designers of the app. I refer the case to the community. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless there is some reason I'm not seeing to discount the existing sources, I think notability has been established. CNet and Business Insider are reliable publications, and both instances of linked coverage are significant, direct, and in detail. If I'm missing something, let me know. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —I Jethrobot (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A a parking technology company and a provider of dynamic and real time parking data..... In May 2011, Parking In Motion debuted its QR Code campaign at the International Parking Institute (IPI) conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in its effort to "make parking fun". Utterly no showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. Keep only if you want yuppie drivers to be screwing around with their Internet phones instead of watching the road while looking for parking places. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - spammy and non-notable, should have been speedily deleted per G11 and/or A7. ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe that this is spam and only for promotional purposes. I saw that a speedy deletion was requested because of this and it was removed by someone that I believe is a developer of this app (due to their username). Cnet and Business Insider are also the only third party sources for this article; all the rest are self published sources. MissPageantNews (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CNet and Business insider reviews make this a notable app. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion G11 does not apply, this is a description of the app and it is not unambiguous advertising; A7 does not apply, as a parking app is a useful product (The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines). COI is a reason to improve an article, not to speedy delete it. Wxidea (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LA Times, CNet and Business Insider qualify as notable. Could use some more technical information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.214.36 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — 108.23.214.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are at least two reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in depth. That's pretty much always enough for WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Yes, the article uses non-independent sources. If there are problems with the way those sources are used -- remember, non-independent sources are not banned, it's about how they're used -- the article can be edited accordingly. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 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) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never Give In[edit]

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

Per a request from the band's management on my talk page, I am nominating this article for deletion because this is an "EP" that does not exist / was not released by the band. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per completely unsourced anyways. i kan reed (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources; only downloads/torrents. Fake/bootleg or otherwise, this record does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 19:27, 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) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Demo[edit]

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

Unreleased demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage for this demo in reliable sources; it does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 20:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete Either merge it into the article on the artist, or delete per WP:MUSIC. Either way, it ain't The Soundhouse Tapes.
Delete Non-notable, not released. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 13:43, 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 00:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Skipper[edit]

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

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

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

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

I was trying to get input about this article on the Talk page but it was going uncommented on. So I bring it here to the community. I don't think the article meets WP:N as I don't see what makes this particular hate crime notable. chris †ianrocker90 02:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided pending further discussion Well, many of the current sources speak of trial-related events, which would not meet the guidelines of notability for crime victims because they do not emphasize the role of the victim and are not persistent. There is some local coverage of a family member speaking at a Gay-Pride Event, and a Day of Silence campaign in 2008 with a few mentions of Skipper as inspiration but I'm not convinced these are sufficient on their own. However, I think the documentary and the fact that it was screened at a local Tampa film festival is notable and suggests persistent coverage. I haven't decided what I want to do about this one, but I will give a final opinion after more discussion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to not failing WP:N actually. Some local coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet the criteria here. I'm from the same side of FL and I've never heard of this. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So am I, I haven't heard either. chris †ianrocker90 23:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event gained coverage that was not directly at the time of the crime and the trial - here in the St. Petersburg Times, this in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, this in WJHG news, this in the Ledger about the film, for example - there's more, too. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok he's notable locally, but what about from a larger perspective, what notability is there there? chris †ianrocker90 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An event doesn't have to pass every criterion of WP:EVENT to be notable. As well, AfDs for terror incidents usually close as keep, as a matter of course; consensus appears to be that they are notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant is his death notable on a national or even international scale? So far I only see he's notable in the Tampa Bay Area. chris †ianrocker90 19:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, an event doesn't have to pass every criterion of WP:EVENT to be notable. Geographically broad coverage is one criterion. Persistent coverage is another. This has persistent coverage. Quite honestly, I would love to tighten the notability guidelines and apply NOTNEWS more stringently, but this is notable according to current notability guidelines and according to the common outcome of keeping articles on terror attacks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion, an event of this nature (which is relatively commonplace) does need to pass the WP:GEOSCOPE section of WP:EVENT. Unfortunately, it receives no significant coverage outside of a small region in Florida. Location (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, if it is possible, that the image on the article should be added to this AfD as if the article is deleted then the image has no use. chris †ianrocker90 17:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Can't be done here, but it can be done here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:24, 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 deleted at primary author's request (WP:CSD#G7). Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Ajax[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources to support notability of this fan project. Singularity42 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I run a website which tracks Star Trek Fan Films, Star Trek Reviewed, vis: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/ Ajax is notable because it is the descendant of Starship Exeter, which was one of the first high quality Star Trek Fan Films, although it has produced only a single complete episode. Work on the second episode reportedly continues. This is my webpage on Starship Exeter: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/21.html . In spite of Exeter's modest output, I can report that this page, with only a single completed fan film, is always among the top 10 most visited pages on the website in any month, (See http://www.blogger.com/stats2.g?blogID=3781097081383681822#overview,LAST_30_DAYS and the ). The set used in Exeter is being used for Ajax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbreader (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs, forums, and facebook pages do not meet the criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Singularity42 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please Keep. The Facebook Page for Ajax does have Production report videos posted which are news updates for the interested members. This information is shared amoungst 4 other sites...Safe Harbor, Trek BBS, Starship Farrugut Forums, And Trek United. So there is a history and some video to co-oborate the Ajax entry here. Robert Simmons100Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existence/corroboration is not the issue here. Compliance with WP:Notability is. The general rule is that this needs to be covered by multiple, third-party, reliable sources in a non-trivial way. Blogs and facebook pages are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would my providing the phone numbers to you of the related people Barbreader mentioned so you can talk to them yourself...as in Jimm Johnson who loaned us the sets and Josha Johnson the brother who brokered the use of the sets. Or John Hughes who asked me to handle this project for him. Happy to provide what you may ask for. We are new so not much exists other than the word of those involved outside of their blogs who own the Exeter sets out on loan to us. Robert Simmons100 Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Please read WP:Notability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability. Singularity42 (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is new as a project would occasional exception in :Reliable Sources apply if co-oborated by other tenured and high profile standing members of the Trek community do so here? Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If it is new, then it is probably not WP:Notable yet. (Please note that notability for Wikipedia policies means something different from the every-day use of the word. I am asking you again, please read the policy.) Singularity42 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability goes...the fact that Ajax secured the sets despite many others were not even allowed to talk to Jimm and Josh Johnson is a feat in of itself since many have wanted to contact them to use the Exeter sets. In the Fan Trek community it has been pointed out that his is in of itself is a masterstroke. Randy Landers of Orion Press would be a noteworthy person to consult at to the Notability of the Ajax production by that accomplishment alone tees it up for the "A" list of Trek fanfilms.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have WP:Reliable Sources for that? Forums, blogs, and facebook do not count. Singularity42 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Why should I bother? I guess it will be best in my trying to do this all over again after we hopefully have released our first episode late next year. I think it is apparent that we will have to fight to justify this then as well to meet the prohibitively steep criteria for a fledgling project such as ours. And i have no desire to fight or ruffle feathers, and am eager to accomodate any way I can to meet what you ask. When that time comes I will assign someone else to do this since I don't want the hassle of having to go through this twice. Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I can provide to you is the head of Starship Exeter. I figured he would be a relaible source what we did with his sets from Starship Exeter. And that would be Jimm Johnson.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the head of other Trek fan Films suffice as WP:Reliable Sources to their opinion if we are WP:Notable?Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any of the policies/guidelines I linked to? Singularity42 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have browsed them to get and idea as to what you are asking. I seem to be coming up short.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

WP:Reliable Sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Questionable sources are those ... with no editorial oversight."

WP:Verifiability: "..all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Singularity42 (talk)

Jsut go ahead and delete the thing....this isn't worth the hassle.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that will be up to an administrator. Singularity42 (talk) 04:00, 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) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pair of Normal Activities[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Singularity42 (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of students hijacking a video camera for an afternoon doesn't qualify as a notable movie; arguably a case for a WP:SNOW speedy delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A play on words won't get you that far. No award, not widely distributed, and not reviewed. Doesn't meet notability criteria for films. Agree with Blade above that this is definitely a case where WP: SNOW is appropriate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 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) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Bell[edit]

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

Unable to develop a WP:RS to support WP:CREATIVE.. Ariconte (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable. --Ozgod (talk) 23:33, 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 as hoax, block user as vandal for unrelated stuff. DS (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Destination[edit]

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

Appears to be some sort of fan-run reality episode. No references can be found to show that it's a real programme. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, bordering on speedy delete as a hoax. Nothing to verify that it's a legitimate program. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pretty darned strong hoax with poor writing; just another awful mash-up of Glee and Total Drama Island that belongs on fanfiction.net or a poorly-visited Tumblr blog. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it or redirect The content in the article is mostly fake, and should be deleted, or at least redirected to Total Drama. Giggett (talk) 06:06, 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) 19:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah presley brando[edit]

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

Delete − Absolute non-sense. Serious WP:LIBEL issues. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the sources appear to back up that a claim was made against Brando's will, even if true, then she would only be notable by relationship with other notable people, and notability is not inherited PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeesh... (Is that a valid deletion rationale?) Carrite (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure nonsense. Absolutely untrue. Actual quote for a source listed on page: ""I believe there were suspicious activities surrounding his death," asserts Deborah, whose claim to be Elvis' daughter was rejected by a judge in 1988." (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2008/01/30/2008-01-30_wild_christian_brando_death_scene.html) - If her claim to be Elvis' daughter was rejected, then why does the wiki page say that she was found to be his daughter?? MissPageantNews (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is in the article (there is sourcing for the claim), but the "court finding" bit has been removed (someone else removed it before I had a chance to). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Give her time to add content before you decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debdey78 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Debdey78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and the libelous claims made. ArcAngel (talk) ) 16:51, 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) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projecis[edit]

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

Non notable project management system. A Business Wire PR article is the only source listed (and PR does not establish notability). (Author disputed prod.) OSborn^arf_contribs. 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Severe lack of reliable truly 3rd party sources. i kan reed (talk) 19:27, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Unionism in Ireland[edit]

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

I don't think this page is necessary and risks replicating material on traditional Irish unionism. Reichsfürst (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of Irish Neo-Unionism is being increasingly spoken about in regard to the United Kingdom's role in Ireland. Of course, there is a fair amount on traditional Irish Unionism between northern and southern Ireland already, but relatively little on Neo-Unionism, of which much of the material would be different to traditional Irish unionism. Traditional Irish unionism would either be a form in which Northern Ireland would join the Irish Republic or Partitionist Unionism, but the topic of Neo-Unionism would be an interesting addition to the broader topic of Irish Unionism as it would be the ROI joining the UK. Lolcackle (talk) 20:32 , 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Then we need sources on it and referring to it. Reichsfürst (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources will be added. I'm new to creating/editing pages on Wikipedia and, by extension, sourcing and referencing. Give me a little time and it will be done. Lolcackle (talk) 20:50 , 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Lolcackle, (laugh out loud cackle), you cannot be serious. there is as much chance of "Neo-Uniosism" as there is of snow in the Atacama. This article is not encyclopedic - it is a political argument for an airy fairy possibility. I believe it is a hoax in poor taste. Mark^Dask 21:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, just because something has little chance of happening doesn't mean it won't happen. I haven't yet finished the article and am currently writing the anti Neo-Unionism arguments: I understand that the article needs to be neutral and I will make sure this is done. It will be encyclopedic, other articles look at political arguments that may have an "airy fairy possibility" of happening. This article is not intended as a hoax, nor is it meant in poor taste and it will be a reference point for people who may have interest in the subject. After all, an article can be of interest and be informative even if something is unlikely to happen at this current time. Lolcackle (talk) 21:27 , 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay Lolcackle - finish the article and I will comment on the finished article. I should declare an interest here - I am an Irish Nationalist - but I am a Wikipedian first so persuade me. Mark^Dask 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, you did say snow on the Atacama, but see here: [[30]]. Give me time, I want to make sure that the article is as neutral as possible so that both the arguments for and against are represented, and as you consider yourself both a wikipedian and an Irish nationalist, I would appreciate whatever arguments and information you have to make this a good article. I respect the notion of Neo-Unionism does not appeal to you, and probably most people in Ireland, but there is a small minority that this does appeal to and all that this article will try to do is inform people with an interest in the topic. I honestly want to show that this is not a narrow-minded politcal hoax. Lolcackle (talk) 22:02 , 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Even leaving aside the fact that this appears to be a hoax the characterisation of ~~the Act of Union and subsequent events~~ much of the history set out appears to be simplistic verging on POV. While I am confident that a small number of people could be found who would support this view in Ireland, it is not clear to me that this exceeds the number who believe that the earth is flat or that the world will end next year. If clarity were provided on this point by some reference to main stream media there might be some justification for keeping this page, albeit with substantial amendment. At present it appears to be a soapbox piece that could usefully be moved to user space pending the addition of verifiable citations of reliable sources. FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE --Eamonnca1 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the addition of citations for certain tangential facts, this article is original research from beginning to end. Scolaire (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I emphasise that this is a very minor issue in Ireland presently and all facts can be backed up with citations, would this address Eamonnca1 and Scolaire's concerns? Lolcackle (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what you mean by "facts". Most of the article as it stands is opinion, not fact. What's needed is documentary evidence that there is a significant body of people somewhere who hold those opinions. The closest you have come to that so far is the Dilettante ref. Unfortunately, blogs do not count as reliable sources when determining the notability of a topic. Bottom line, if you could satisfy WP:Verifiabilty, WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research then it would address my concerns. Frankly, I don't think you will be able to do that. Scolaire (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per very WP:FRINGE Bjmullan (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a new article, but on a subject that I have read about in the past few years. I'd say that deleting this is the wrong move, instead we should work together, nationalist and unionist, to improve it. Laurellien (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Definitely WP:FRINGE, totally unsourced. --HighKing (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. --The Silent Blues 12:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. More participation is needed from "non-partisan" editors. More discussion is needed about whether or not the article meets our inclusion criteria as there has been little mention of verifiability, notability or sourcing. WP:FRINGE is more about how an article on a fringe topic should be written then on whether or not it should exist. A fringe theory can be notable and an encyclopedic article written on it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Demián (Performance Artist)[edit]

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

There are no real references in this article the links are just to the homepages of the stuff mentioned. The awards and achievements have no references and I couldn't find anything at all about this guy on google. This is my first afd so I hope I did this right. PTJoshua (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of references. I searched Google and Yahoo with no avail except for MySpace and Facebook pages. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. A passing mention in critic review from the Chicago Sun-Times in 2005 of a play he was in here may not be enough, but his LGBT-related work in a local paper by the Chicago Sun-Times and in the Tribune. The source about Lamba Legal is substantiated by this PDF describing the program. There is a lot of unsourced info in the article, but the articles above seem to give some reliable, third-party coverage of Demian. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering Demian's involvement in the LGBT community, we might consider categorizing this under WP: WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#AfD or another appropriate category. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:42, 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) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Agreed about WP: WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Article_alerts#AfD ... Wxidea (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —I Jethrobot (talk) 01:39, 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) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Sawyer[edit]

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

Non-notable film-business "suit"; only source is IMDb. Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 10th Hole Productions, notability not established. Hairhorn (talk) 14:43, 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. — Cirt (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashly lorenzana[edit]

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

this article is about a self-published author who appears to be pretty good at promoting herself as you can see from the two local articles listed and her own website. There doesn't appear to be anything about her outside of her own self promotion and those two small local articles. PTJoshua (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her website was not included in this article at all, nor was it written to promote anything related to her. It is purely biographical information along with quotes and/or points made from the news articles I cited. One interview aired on Fox News and the newspaper article I used as a source was in no way commercial or promotional, the subject of the column was her life events, prostitution and drug addiction. Her writing was secondary to all of the aforementioned topics.

If her writing is secondary are you really saying that you think she should have an article because she was a drug addicted prostitute? There are kind of a lot of those and I don't think they all should have articles. PTJoshua (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that side of the argument, you have a valid point. But I'd like to point out that while there are many drug addicted prostitutes in the world, there are not many who out themselves in the way this woman has. Few women openly share their experiences with prostitution, for a number of reasons. Also, she is an interesting case study for childhood abuse and its role in developing self-destructive behaviors such as drug addiction. While her writing may have room for improvement, after reading it I do believe it to have some sort of potential and at least some merit. She appears to be quite active politically, from what I can tell. But I understand if you disagree, perhaps it would be best to hold off and see if she decides to build on what she has already done.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 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) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable 96.244.254.20 (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Delete, was on the fence upon seeing one or two local articles about her and the book, but it also seems to be self-published.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:01, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Genes & Rock 'n' Roll: How Evolution has Shaped the Modern World[edit]

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

Notability has not been established, the review listed in the external links is from a paid service. From the website's faq: "Why should I buy your service when the news is free, right?" and "We filter the information you want" casts doubt on being a reliable source, and the only other external link is a site selling the book. SudoGhost™ 02:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a link to another review, not from a paid service.Arbuthnot101 (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability generally requires multiple reliable sources to establish notability. The If you’re an academic and have a book coming out that you’d like reviewed part at the bottom of the newly added site, in conjunction with the disclosed potential conflict of interest on the part of the reviewer make the newly added source not as strong as a source should be for establishing notability on the basis of those two sources alone. - SudoGhost™ 04:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer's Disclosure Statement is that "Mark Elgar receives funding from ARC (= Australian Research Council)." That is required of all contributors to The Conversation who say "Our goal is to ensure the content is not compromised in any way. We therefore ask all authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before publication." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcbrooks (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two sites listed are not enough to establish notability, one being a paid service, the other being a site that reviews (seemingly any, but we don't know) book that is sent to the site, by a reviewer with a potential conflict on interest. Not saying he has one, but I'm saying that given the lack of additional references, these two alone are not enough to establish notability. - SudoGhost™ 04:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established.Curb Chain (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 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) 00:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I have edited the page to balance the tone and avoid copyright issues, and add additional notability. The new, multidisiplinary book is by a irrefutably credible and well respected young researcher at UNSW Sydney -- see peer reviewed publications [31] It is reviewed by COSMOS magazine, a major Australian monthly publication. The page still needs edits, but should be KEPT. Wxidea (talk)

This is a trivial reference, this is little more than a plot summary, and does not provide sufficient critical commentary, this is behind a paywall, but also seems to lack sufficient critical commentary, this is his "summary of publication" from his place of employment, and has nothing to do with establishing notability for this article, this is a very tiny blurb, not even worth being a reference, and the others are explained above. This is the only one that meets the "sufficient critical commentary" requirement. This article has only one reference that contains sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary, thereby failing WP:NB. - SudoGhost ™ 05:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ - SudoGhost is wrong. As per Wikipedia:Notability_(books), there is no requirement for citations that establish notability to be available online. New Scientist is a very credible science news magazine, and the New Scientist article is robust ciritical commentary. The fact that SudoGhost can't see the New Scientist article does not mean the source is invalid nor that the article is not notable. Wxidea (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the article. It does not give sufficient critical commentary as per WP:NB. Also, as your "keep" comment is already seen above, there is no need for repeating it, so I have struck out the duplicate keep. - SudoGhost ™ 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the duplicate bold 'keep', which I added absentmindedly. Still, the book meets the threshold for notability. There are multiple reviews from credible sources which provide meaningful commentary, more than a simple plot summary (it is non fiction; so plot summary is irrelevant regardless). Coverage in New Scientist is a big deal, and there does not need to be a 5000 word essay. WP:NB does not require lengthy articles. Further, WP:NB specifies in "Academic and technical books" that "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book" -- and this book is published by an academic press (New South Books (a subsidiary of UNSW Press, a university press)). Wxidea (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book is an employee of UNSW, making the weight given by such a publication suspect, by my reasoning. That fact, in combination with the lack of reliable, third party sources that give significant coverage that establish notability, is why I believe this article should be deleted. The article was added to Wikipedia by the author himself, not by someone who was interested in the subject and believed the article would make a significant improvement to Wikipedia, but by the author, hoping the article would help publicize his work. This is not what Wikipedia is for. The article is not notable. I'm not opposed to it being recreated later if it becomes notable and a good contribution to Wikipedia, but I don't believe that this current article meets either one of those criteria. - SudoGhost ™ 02:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is invalid to reject the cachet of being published in a university press because the author/scholar is an employee of the parent university. University presses primarily publish work from their university, though they occasionally also publish in specific fields or take work from scholars at other institutions that do not have their own university press. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author starting an article after it was reviewed in 3rd party media, and other editors have reviewed the article to check it is not promotional. Wxidea (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the employment with the same university that publishes the book would not be an issue if it had solid references, but it does not. "There is absolutely nothing wrong with an author starting an article" COI editing is strongly discouraged as per WP:COI. The article itself was an advertisement, written before the book was even published. The article was written as a promotional vehicle, and though it has been cleaned, it still gives nothing to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost ™ 11:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the original article had COI and also lacked notability, so it was acceptable (albeit hasty and unfriendly to newbies) to nominate AfD. The article is now sufficiently notable; and sufficiently non promotional. Your actions have had the effect of improving the article, though I argue you could have done this in a more productive manner (e.g., notifying the author). My vote for 'keep' remains. Articles are not banned or deleted from Wikipedia just because they start in a weak or unacceptable state. To summarize:

WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:PROMOTION - does not apply. Article attempts a neutral tone. It is valid and welcome for wikipedia to include many books.
WP:GNG - does not apply. There are sufficient 3rd party reviews for a book from an academic press
WP:BK - applies. The article does not violate any of the book notability guidelines.
WP:DEMOLISH (Don't demolish the house while it's still being built) - applies. Science literacy is falling worldwide and notable, multidisciplinary books should be described in Wikipedia. More energy would be productively spent by improving the article's summary of the reception by reviewers and cross-linking to other multidisciplinary and popular science books than trying to trash it in this discussion.
WP:BARE and WP:MINIMUM - do not apply. The book is above the bare threshold for notability for a book from a university press.
WP:CARES - Does not apply. University presses rarely make money, and smart editors who know their industry well believe this book will have a broad readership (which for university presses is typically a press run of 10k copies).
WP:IDL - Applies. Dislike for an article is not sufficient to delete it.
WP:IS & WP:INDY - Applies. There are 3rd party sources.
WP:JNN - applies. Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis. Do other editors have any valid reason to this this new book is not notable?
WP:OVERZEALOUS - applies. The practice of "dying to" get an article deleted
WP:UGLY - applies. Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion. The article could be improved considerably, it has a lot of reviews and is on a deeply interesting topic.
WP:POTENTIAL - applies. Articles like this (multidisciplinary & popular science) are useful for Wikipedia, and this article has room for improvement and cross linking to other wikipedia articles.
WP:USEFUL -- applies. No one is claiming the article should be kept purely because it is useful.

Wxidea (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in a better state than it was, but still does not meet the criteria necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia. To avoid listing a dozen policies that can or cannot apply to any given article, I will list one. WP:TOOSOON, while written for actors and films, applies to books as well. - SudoGhost ™ 23:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The article is just a week old. Give it a chance to establish notability already. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability must be established when an article is created, rather than waiting for the subject of the article to become notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:18, 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 No consensus. There is consensus that the article should not exist in its current state, but more discussion is required to determine exactly what to do. All involved editors are invited to continue discussion, or boldly solve the problem according to the proposals in this discussion (merge and/or disambiguate). Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blazers/Cowboys[edit]

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

The article in question is about a series of teams that played in the WHA from 1972 to 1977. However, each of the teams covered by this article have their own articles (Miami Screaming Eagles, Philadelphia Blazers, Vancouver Blazers, Calgary Cowboys) essentially making this page redundant. Further, this article has perhaps the most bizarre title I have ever seen. That probably doesn't matter to the AfD, but it's certainly still weird. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —– Nurmsook! ^talk... 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed due to the existence of articles about all the teams covered by this overall title, and an unlikely redirect. But the title isn't that bizarre. I've seen pages with names such as Guards in riot gear take killer to the toilets, Juane and rayne are the masters of the universe, All this from singing songs coming up though we thought slinging raw was the end all, be all, Do cows eat people?, Yes; For a friend, and Mlmked, Mlmk'd (mlmk being kicked from yet another group). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder why all the versions of this team in different cities have separate articles anyway. We don't necessarily do that with other teams in other leagues. For example, St. Louis Browns is a redirect to Baltimore Orioles, not a separate article. I am striking my delete recommendation due to the attribution requirement problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. The article was a merger some years ago at a time when it was felt a succession of teams that lasted only one or two years before moving on, all part of the same franchise, could not exist as standalone articles. That strategy had long since been abandoned in the hockey project when I split out Calgary Cowboys. It seems the other teams were subsequently split last month. Unfortunately, since these splits were basically cut and paste moves, this article cannot be deleted as it is required to maintain attribution. Where in the hell we redirect it to, however, I am not certain. Perhaps do a history merge on one article at random? Resolute 03:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. Perhaps we could merge everything into the Vancouver Blazers article, being the most recent team other than the Cowboys? That way we can get rid of the strange Blazers/Cowboys title, and redirect the Philadelphia and Miami teams to the Vancouver article. Just a thought. The only problem is, I don't doubt that the individual articles would be created again. So maybe a history merge into the Vancouver article is best (again, this being because it was the longest living and most recent of the three clubs). – Nurmsook! ^talk... 03:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking the Philly article since it was the first team that played, but it doesn't much matter either way, does it? We'd then need to put one of those attribution templates on the other three articles' talk pages pointing back to the edit history. Reso lute 14:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disambigution to all three teams, perhaps? Patken4 (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambigution as suggested by Patken4. Dolovis (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation Seems to make most sense to me. --Hockeyben (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - these teams simply don't need their own pages and having a DMB page as well is yet another unnecessary complication. Better to have one page from which the history of the franchise can be followed. It must be far easier for the reader to have all the information in one place rather than having to piece the history together, from separate pages, themselves. TerriersFan (talk) 18:15, 6 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagit Borer[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. She apparently "initiated the eXoSkeletal framework in Morphology", but there is similarly no indication that this framework is notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Well over 1000 cites on GS in poorly cited area to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 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) 00:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously needs better referencing, which I'm willing to do, but not deletion. Jayjg may have some bias here: he opposed using Prof. Borer as a linguistics-related cite in an article a couple years back (Can search out diffs if anyone wants to see them) and he may have some problem with her current involvement in the Freedom Flotilla II action. (She's on one of the ships.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability requirements. Article can be improved.--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of her articles get several hundred citation. Also she is named in four different languages on Google News with not just a single incident drawing coverage.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable person. She is the author of several academic books, from publishers including OUP, and of scores of articles in scholarly publications; she is a well-known activist, who has apeared in several films and broadcasts, as well as publishing commentary; and she is a passenger in the flotilla. I see no justification for deleting this three-year-old article. It could certainly be improved; but that is no reason to delete it. RolandR (talk) 15:50, 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Hyams[edit]

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

No indication she meets WP:PROF. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing large amounts of cites of her papers and books at Gscholar, as well as exposition on some things she's researched via Gbooks [32], [33], [34]. An additional source describes her work (or part of it) as influential. As a result of the Gscholar results, I argues she meets WP:PROF #1, as a result of the books I listed above, I argue she meets WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...none of which appears in the Wikipedia article, which consists of two unsourced sentences. Also, most of those google scholar hits appear to be material she has published, not citations by others. When doing searches, you should probably put "Nina Hyams" in quotation marks; she's not the only Hyams around. For example, the film director Peter Hyams gets 330 gscholar hits,[35] and Hollywood columnist and biographer Joe Hyams, gets 250 gscholar hits.[36] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.

You're absolutely right that I should have included quotes, this would have been the correct link. However, the first 20 results of this new search results are roughly identical to the search I performed, are all related to the branch of linguistics this professor's article indicates she's involved in, and are likely the same individual.

When I said "a lot of cites", I did not mean that Gscholar returned a lot of results. A more reliable metric, although surely imperfect, is how often the books and papers authored by the article subject are cited by authoritative sources. For example, the first two results are books authored by the article subject (I beleive) cited themselves by 1200+ and 800+ scholarly publications themselves. The formal papers start out with cite counts of 200 or so. While I have not computed the typical indicia used to turn this into a guess as notability (e.g., h-index, g-index), it was and still remains my sense that the citation counts on those highly cited books and papers reach a level which is well above the usual passing bar. Sorry for any confusion on this point. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...none of which appears in the Wikipedia article, which still consists of two unsourced sentences. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I lack access to the vast majority of the works that would support a full article on this subject, I hope the nine or so book references that I have added to the article will serve as a sufficient starting point. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep from WP:Prof#C1. joe decker's interpretation of policy is correct. Around 3000 GS cites and an h index of 25 in linguistics is far above average. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 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) 00:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP via WP:Prof.. In my view an important scholar in her field with evidence easily found and sufficient provided by the sources cited in the article. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Only 12 WoS papers, but their collective citations are > 150, which I think is enormous for that particular field. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 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. seems that multiple sources have not been found so the policy based votes are the delete ones Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piggly Wiggly (Children's game)[edit]

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

PROD declined without adding sources or improvement. Unsourced non notable children's game. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no sources or indications of notability. The article itself suggests that it is something that might have just been made up by a small number of people. Interestingly, the article suggests that this is a variation of another game, Squeak Piggy Squeak, which is currently up for ((prod)) deletion because it too is non-notable and unsourced.Agent 86 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you all think that this is truly non-notable, then so be it. I haven't the time nor energy to go searching for TV programmes or books, because quite honestly it isn't all that important to me what you lot decide. I admit I am new to the Wikipedia community. I thought you'd be looking for completeness rather than notability, since this is more or less about trying to have the largest database of information available. As for being a "non-notable" game, well hey, I didn't know that there were set rules for what is and isn't allowed to be a game. As far as I knew, most games were simply just made up one day. I can tell you that I did not come up with this, and that I have seen it mentioned and played in many different places. That is all I can give you. Do with it what you will. --BRB1992 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you did not invent the game, and I'm equally sure that you posted the article in the very best of good faith. Wikipedia is indeed the 'encyclopedia anyone can edit', but the downside is that there are a lot of complex rules to be got through, and one of them is that subject material must be notable, and reliably sourced. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I suppose I'll just leave it to you. I'm sure you're all doing just fine on your own. --BRB1992 (talk) 15:04, 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) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time. This is intriguing. I always like when Wikipedia is able to include folk knowledge. But folk knowledge, especially among kids games, often is slow to be recorded. Maybe within a few weeks, another editor can find an independent reference. There's no COI or harm in this stub, and maybe it can be expanded. Wxidea (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added one link. It's a real game, not a scam. Wxidea (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as Piggly Wiggly (children's game) (ie lower case "c") (or perhaps just "(game)"?) and add hatnote at Piggly Wiggly. Sheer quantity of ghits for "piggly wiggly" and "sleepover" indicates notability in common sense terms, even if OED only knows about the supermarkets. PamD (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Good points. Wxidea (talk) 23:30, 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 stdio.h. v/r - T P 21:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind (C)[edit]

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

PROD contested. Article about a function of the C programming language, unencyclopaedic per WP:NOTMANUAL. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Function is a member of stdio.h, can be expanded per other articles in List of C functions. Article in its current state does not appear to be a how-to. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it could be merged into stdio.h, as most of the articles on that list. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not independently notable enough to ever evolve past a stub. Encyclopedia is not a manual. W Nowicki (talk) 17:06, 24 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, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to stdio.h per User:antiuser. JIP | Talk 07:32, 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 21:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Israelism[edit]

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

Non-notable philosophical movement. The article asserts that there is only one "key work on Dutch Israelism to date"; this work is by a non-notable author from a tiny niche publisher. The sources cited within the article are this aforementioned book and associated sites that don't seem to pass the WP:RS smell test. I can locate no scholarly sources to suggest that this topic has been even noticed by relevant historians let alone critiqued. — Scientizzle 14:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 14:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 14:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 14:46, 21 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, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or re-create as... Interesting topic, though there is just one major source. So could be re-created as an article about that source, Helene Koppejan's Strange Parallel: Zubulun -The Netherlands A Tribe of Israel (1984).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolmooredc (talk • contribs)
Do you have any indication that the book passes our notability criteria? (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --Lambiam 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did some looking around and I really doubt Strange Parallel: Zebulun - The Netherlands a Tribe of Israel or Helene Koppejan (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) would pass any reasonable notability bar...at least not without offline sources that indicate any substantive coverage. There's no apparent scholarship on this topic, so it all appears well within the range of WP:FRINGE. — Scientizzle 13:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's good to have fringy stuff where there can be an NPOV description. I see on Amazon the book has been through a bunch of printings, so there probably is some audience. It's up to the original author to defend or rewrite it per suggestions. But whatever... CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as at the moment the only source doesn't seem notable itself. Note that the article creator is indefinitely blocked and Tribe of Zebulun doesn't mention this claim. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 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) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gilmartin[edit]

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

No evidence subject meets criteria of WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE, as he has only competed in national amateur tournaments but not won any. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added cited sources to Mark Gilmartin's page and am contesting deletion. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to prevent his page from being deleted. Thank you very much. :) Joyprice7 (talk)joyprice7 —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References are promotional in nature so are not reliable sources. Oonissie (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:ATHLETE for golf and does not meet WP:BIO for business. Also, does not appear to meet WP:GNG.

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) 02:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association "Woman and Society"[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG. No evidence of coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 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, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What's the hurry? It's just 3 months old. I added an English link for those interested. Whatever happened to Wikipedia trying to have a more inclusive world view? Not to mention taking women's efforts more seriously. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having a greater worldview and upholding notability standards are not mutually exclusive goals. What policy- or guideline-based arguments support inclusion of this article? --Kinu ^t/_c 16:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't pass the criteria at WP:ORG. I've also tried searching for it under its Russian title (Ассоциации Женщина и Общество), and cannot find independent coverage. Willing to change my mind, if references show up to support claims to notability. Voceditenore (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a more generic search on Google books for women's+rights+Tajikistan and still nothing turns up on this particular organization, although there is a lot of material on the general subject and this source lists many NGOs in Tajikistan which work in this area, but does not list this one. I'd suggest on article on Status of women in Tajikistan or expanding Human rights in Tajikistan. Taking a more inclusive world view and taking women's efforts more seriously is not incompatible with upholding notability guidelines, but it in this case, a strong argument for this particular NGO cannot really be made.Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ards Cricket Club - grouped nomination[edit]

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

P.S.N.I. Cricket Club - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Victoria Cricket Club - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - nb: slightly awkward as it is a name used by clubs elsewhere.

The above clubs all play in Section Three (the fourth tier) of the NCU Senior League, a provincial cricket league in Ireland. That country at present has no national league and the top Sections of each of the four provincial leagues therefore represent the highest level of cricket that can be played there.

Until recently there were articles for other clubs playing at the same level. Three of these have been deleted via individual AfD discussions.

Of the remaining other two clubs in the Section, one is already at AfD individually - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burndennett Cricket Club - and the other is Cregagh Cricket Club, which may or may not be notable and does not form part of this AfD nomination for that reason.

The articles for Ards, PSNI and Victoria at best only use primary sources, are all stubs and appear not to pass WP:GNG. The clubs are playing at the lowest level of their league and do not appear to qualify as inherently notable under the project guidelines at WP:CRIN. The project guidelines are currently subject to a fairly long-winded discussion but there is already a consensus there that clubs playing at the level of Ards, PSNI and Victoria are unlikely to qualify, an opinion made all the stronger by the fact that the three AfDs which have already resulted in deletions occurred during the process of that discussion.

I propose that Ards, PSNI and Victoria are deleted per the established precedent, perhaps best summarised by the closer of the Dungannon AfD.

I have not submitted these articles to PROD because I am aware that their creator will likely contest. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete All None of these fourth tier club teams have any third party sources, the reason for this is they do't appear to exist and so fail WP:GNG. Cricket in Ireland is a very minor sport and just does not receive coverage. Mtking (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mtking (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is part of a campaign by two editors (the two who have contributed above) to delete Irish cricket articles. A discussion is ongoing at the WP cricket project, but the two editors press on with their campaign. These clubs are senior cricket clubs and as such should have articles in line with the project guidelines under which equivalent clubs in England and Wales are considered notable. Mooretwin (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this off motives and on WP policies and guidelines. In this case by showing that the articles nominated meet the WP:GNG and WP:V because otherwise the closing administrator is likely to disregard your !vote as a case of WP:OTHEREDITORSDONTLIKE.Mtking (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Burndennett AfD now closed as delete also. - Sitush (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 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) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4th division club. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - play at an insufficiently high level for notability. Separately fail WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too far down the league structure. Where appropriate, some of this information might be reasonably placed in articles about the geographical locations of these clubs, but not as separate articles. Johnlp (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these clubs are already mentioned in the articles for their respective towns/cities. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 6 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) 00:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Tuesday (real estate school)[edit]

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

Non-notable license training institution. All provided references are either primary sources (the organizaton's own website) or trivial listings of the organization's membership in various organizations. Borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hasty and fallacious accusation.

While it is generally accepted primary sources may be biased, they are important, and frankly vital, to explaining or defining any bit of information, real estate schools included. In this particular case, less than half of the sources used are primary.

The rest come from outside sources. Trivial? Even without putting one's American Government bias or predisposition aside, California's Department of Real Estate (DRE), can hardly be called "trivial."

When considering this piece spam, which I'd imagine the original allegation is referring to §1 Advertisements masquerading as articles, please refer to article, Neutral Point of View. This particular page has been given special care as to not pose opinion as fact (evidenced by the eleven citations), no seriously contested assertion is ever presented as a fact, no uncontested assertion is presented as mere opinion, nor is judgmental or biased language used. As for indicating opposing views, given the nature of the information presented on this page, this issue was addressed by making it a point not to advertise, but merely inform. At no point does this page suggest the school defined is better than any others out there. Rather, it is simply defined, and with the mindset that first tuesday is a grounded and credible player in California's rich real estate history.

For a similar page reference, please visit Wikipedia's entry on Allied Schools (United States). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpalm01 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC) comment added by Cpalm01[reply]

Reply No, the California Department of Real Estate is not trivial. The coverage of first tuesday at said site is trivial. The DRE link is merely a search engine in which one might search for accredited distance learning institutions. All of the other references are of a similar nature. If need be we can examine them one by one:

California DRE - already dismissed
List of memberships - being an affiliate of an association does not confer notability
CREAA.ORG Member List - see above
NAREE.ORG - doesn't even mention first tuesday
first tuesday General Information - Primary Source. Might verify facts, but does not verify notability.
Reverse Mortgage article - does not mention first tuesday or its founder Crane
70/30 citation - verifies the fact in question, but again does not verify notability of first tuesday
DRE Licensing guidelines - See 70/30 citation
Remaining citations are to the school's own website.

In sum, no verification is provided that this organization meets notability criteria. And comparing your article to another article (Allied Schools (United States) in this case) is pointless for two reasons. Allied Schools is not a single school, but an corporation that operates multiple for-profit education centers. As such, it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple publications, which cannot be said of first tuesday. And even if the Allied Schools article were problematic, the presence of other poor articles on Wikipedia is not a valid reason to keep this poor article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The referencing in the articel might establish some facts, but fails to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 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) 00:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial mentions do not show notability. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:26, 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 all. m.o.p 02:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FK Jadar[edit]

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

Also:

FK Jadar Gornji Dobrić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Pusta Reka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Đerdap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Jedinstvo Smederevo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Erdoglija Kragujevac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Goč Vrnjačka Banja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Milicionar Bogatić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Mladost Begaljica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Obilić Novi Kneževac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
FK Seljak Mihajlovac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This series of articles were all nominated for CSD: A7. I can't tell what league they play in so it's hard to tell if they pass WP:SPORT. -- Selket ^Talk 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just added a few more -- Selket ^Talk 22:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no indication of notability, and no evidence that these clubs compete at a high enough sporting level to meet standard requirements at WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 21:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm just a little worried about systemic bias. I found a youtube link that suggested one of them played in UEFA Champion's League, but it was in Serbian (I think). -- Selket ^Talk 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which one? I'd gladly eat one of my hats if that were true. For a start, they would have at least a semi-decent article. I found a YouTube clip as well. Here is FK Jadar taking on GFK Jasenica 1911. Notable? I'm no expert on Serbian football, but it all looks very amateur and I'd imagine almost all of the clubs playing in the Zone Leagues haven't played in the Serbian Cup before, so they're not notable whatsoever. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - articles should not be bundled with an existing AfD once the discussion has begun; I would suggest opening up a new AfD for the second set of articles. Regards, Giant Snowman 22:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included at WikiProject Serbia's talk page. -- Selket ^Talk 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First off, FK Jadar and FK Jadar Gornji Dobrić are the same club. RSSSF has a complete rundown of notable Serbian leagues and the domestic cup for the most recent campaign. FK Jadar Gornji Dobrić, FK Pusta Reka, FK Đerdap, and FK Obilić Novi Kneževac competed in the Zone Leagues which is the fourth tier of Serbian football. The others aren't listed at all so they play in an even lower league. None of them competed in the Serbian Cup and it's unclear if they have before. If the ones I tagged for CSD had a reasonable claim to notability, such as playing in their domestic cup, with a source then I wouldn't have done so, but the articles as they are have no place on Wikipedia. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:19, 24 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, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable clubs. Articles currently contain nearly no information and give no indication of notability.--EdwardZhao (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of them pass the general notability guideline and none of them meet the flimsy criteria at WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFAIK they all fail WP:GNG. Timbouctou (talk) 02:07, 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.