< 8 September	10 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charge polarization

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a tiny amount of sense in bits of the article but not to overcome OSYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Unlike most of this user's articles, the references actually back up some individual points within the text, but the core of it is still OR and SYNTH violations. Trusilver 14:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I am able to tell, the parts that Xxanthippe refers to as making "a tiny bit of sense" were copied word-for-word (without attribution) from other Wikipedia articles (technically a violation of the terms of our license). Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distal promoter

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent WP:SYNTH, and the topic is covered in Promoter (biology). -- 202.124.73.227 (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angiotensinogen core promoter element

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAAC element

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is nothing more than a string of paraphrases (and some wholesale lifting of phrases) from the primary research literature. I would call this original research by synthesis if it were at all coherent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EIF4E basal element

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholesale phrases have been lifted from the sources, and woven together as if they made a coherent narrative. This article isn't just nonsense, but it's also a copyvio. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downstream B recognition element

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Focused promoter

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is not my area of expertise, but the topic is legitimate. I have spent my whole day today digging through references for this editor's articles, and this one in particular I have a hard time finding evidence of any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH issues that are so prevalent in his others. I would be very interested to hear the opinion of someone who has a stronger knowledge of this field. Trusilver 23:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propulsion system

[edit]

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

OR article! Gibberish! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mother article with a collection of notable prop. systems. Great as an introduction about the topic for interested readers. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's gonna need significant revision. I debated nominating this one, but it still reads like so much OR.AstroCog (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one I'm going to lean toward keeping. It's a disaster of an article, and it looks vaguely coatrackish, but the subject is valid and, as Sp33dyphil pointed out, is a good introduction to a more complicated topic. Trusilver 14:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think this article could benefit from a lot of work but it's notable and the existing content doesn't seem to be misleading or copyvio at first glance. Several of the creators' other articles are up for deletion because they just mash together paragraphs about different things which share a keyword, but in this article that sin might actually be a virtue. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Too general to be useful: it's about ships, vehicles, spacecraft, birds, insects... Mostly unreferenced, and a copyvio because of WP:CWW (from Ship, Spacecraft propulsion, Vehicle propulsion, etc.) without acknowledging the source. -- 202.124.74.23 (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One of many articles created by a banned user by smashing together bits from other articles. A bot could easily generate tens of thousands of similar articles: indeed, I'm wondering if some of these were created programatically. -- The Anome (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an absolutely basic encyclopedic topic, as you can see from the articles that link to the topic (I added a few that already existed as unlinked terms). It's clearly verifiable and is good to have as an overview. It needs work, but what doesn't? Steven Walling • talk 03:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial source

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland ice cores

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it barely addresses the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the author was banned? His user page only says that he/she is currently indefinitely blocked. See WP:Banning policy. There is a difference. Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my mistake. But banned or blocked, the point is that User:Marshallsumter has caused a disruption by creating over 200 articles which contain his original research and WP:SYNTH. He's also created numerous WP:Coatrack articles, which on the surface appear legitimate, and may even be salvageable, but they seem to exist mainly to link to his other questionable articles. My intent was not to place an ad hom on the editor, but to provide awareness of the issue.AstroCog (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete part of the same WP:SYNTH farm of the author.--Cerejota (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "WP:SYNTH farm"? Unscintillating (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After skimming the article, it seems to mostly be about a mapping of places in Greenland where ice cores have been drilled. Without getting more involved, this seems like a plausible topic. I have returned to the nomination to examine the charges being made to justify deletion, and find some generalized objections to the content and an ad hominem against the author. If the editor is banned, this article can be speedy deleted, but the user page does not mention banning. The content objections are not stated as objections that rise to the level indicated at WP:Deletion policy, nor does my initial skimming of the article verify article-wide OR or nonsense. Nor in the nomination is there evidence of an attempt to assess the notability of the topic or consider WP:ATD, for example, there is no documentation of Google searches. Seeing no need for more detailed analysis, I !vote Keep. Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, User:Marshallsumter has created hundreds of articles with significant WP:SYNTH issues, and often WP:COPYVIO issues and WP:CWW issues, please see the thread at ANI. There is a wikiwide effort to fix these issues, and there is a significant amount of support for wiping the slate clean. I agree this particular topic could be fixed and is notable, but the content is a semi-random collection of SYNTH and possible copy-vio. I share the opinion that due to the generalized consensus that this user has abused editing privileges and that the best way to fix these issue is to delete and begin anew. A few of his creations are actually topics in need of coverage, but in the background of the conduct, there is reason to believe that in this case no content is preferable to bad content.--Cerejota (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as largely unsourced synth-y OR. That being said, an actual article could probably be written on the topic, so no prejudice against any recreation. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a comment here. The main point for this discussion is that the editor remains unbanned. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio problems with the images, on which this article strongly depends. -- 202.124.73.164 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My chief concern is that there is a lot of copying within Wikipedia in this article, and it is very likely that the remaining text is copied verbatim (or nearly so) from other sources. The article contains the sentence

Low δ18O values are associated with low temperatures and vice versa, and the shift of δ18O values at 11-1200 m / 11,000 years is the shift from the glacial to the current interglacial.

That was lifted verbatim from the Niels Bohr institute. Likewise, the sentence

Probably the most important outcome from the analysis of the Camp Century ice core is the demonstration that ice core drilling and the oxygen isotope analysis are viable ways of reconstructing past climate.

is very similar to

…the most important outcome from the analysis of the Camp Century ice core probably was the demonstration of the fact that ice core drilling and the oxygen isotope method were indeed viable ways of reconstructing past climate.

This is more than a close paraphrase: phrases have been copied wholesale with possibly just enough modification to trick automated filters. The remaining text (that isn't CWW) is largely sourced to the Frozen Annals book, which I don't have electronic access to. I see it, the well is already poisoned and there is no overriding reason to give the remaining content the benefit of the doubt. With this editor, if you don't see copyright violations, you simply aren't looking hard enough. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12. Along with the copyvios identified by Sławomir Biały, much of the "Ice core site" is either copied or very closely paraphrased from section 8 of this source, cited but without a link as footnote [4]. This is part of a much bigger pattern of problematic contributions from this editor, and I think the only way to be sure we're clean is to nuke it all. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial gamma-ray source

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Note that User:Marshallsumter has created a whole sub-wikipedia of bad articles that link abundantly to each other, like Astronomical source ad Astronomical object. What the heck? Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corona Australis 1

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it barely addresses the page's (non-notable) topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, good faith efforts have been made, it's clear where this is headed. —SpacemanSpiff 14:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-polar ice core

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete of most of Marshallsumter's contributions. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been spending the whole day fact-checking this user's articles, and this one is almost completely nonsense. The references are almost never related to the text in the article, and the article itself is gibberish and seems to have no point whatsoever. Trusilver 23:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Trusilver. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, it's clear where this is headed, no reason not to speed up the process. —SpacemanSpiff 18:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary A0V X-ray star

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is User:Marshallsumter a bot designed to efficiently turn Google Scholar searches into really, really bad articles? Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is totally incoherent. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12) of the sources cited. Hut 8.5 12:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heterointegration

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. Topic does not seem to be notable. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion. (procedural close) —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar binary

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it barely addresses the page's topic, for which there doesn't seem to be much notability. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Nemesis (hypothetical star). Author has no idea what he's talking about. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from sounding like random babbling, the article is clearly a WP:SYNTH violation. The references themselves have little or nothing to do with the article in almost all the cases, and appear to be there only to establish legitimacy for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 September 2011

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, multiple editors have tried to work on this, no point letting this sit out there for more time. —SpacemanSpiff 05:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star fission

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it barely addresses the page's topic. Just try to read the first section. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, recreate as redirect to Star - this topic is notable, just this article is garbage that should be removed, so delete and then create as a new redirect to Star which discusses the topic. In the future, new editors might recreate a true encyclopedic entry on the topic.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a notable topic, though it should be called "Binary Star Formation" or something like that. "Fission" is confusing and in keeping with the rest of the garbage in this article. There is a section on the topic at the binary star article. I think that should be the starting point.AstroCog (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks a lot like the User:Marshallsumter content I fought to improve at, e.g., Stellar surface fusion and Proton-antiproton annihilation. It reads as though the author has a sciencey-sounding keyword they don't understand, then pulled one random sentence from every Google Scholar hit for that keyword. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 01:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation. I've been reading and cross-referencing this article for an hour now and this looks like nothing but nonsense. The references only seem to be tangentially related to the article itself, and after a half dozen read-through, I still can't seem to figure out what most of the article has to do with the subject matter. I find the subject fascinating on the surface but can find nearly nothing here that isn't total, unmitigated original research. The article cannot exist in its current state, but I see no problem whatsoever with it being rewritten by an editor that isn't pushing his own agenda. Trusilver 14:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading through the first paragraph alone, I see a sentence lifted from a source without attribution. It's likely that this continues through the whole article, since this seems to be a pattern with all of this editor's articles (see this ANI thread), it should be deleted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be potential for a decent article here; however it would have wholly different content and the presence of the current bundle of OR would be more of a help than a hindrance. Get rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, there's no reason to let this sit out any longer when it's clearly known where it's headed. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract concept generator

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are virtually no sources that discuss "Abstract concept generator ". I found one book mentions it once: "Some aspects of text grammars: A study in theoretical linguistics and poetics" by Dijk. But it is mentioned in passing, and that is not sufficient for an entire WP article. If there is such a ting as an ACG, any material related to it could be put into some article on linguistics, grammar, or the like. --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like it was written by an abstract concept generator. Or by mashing together the ledes of several vaguely-related articles. Not as something that makes sense for itself, in any case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consists of definitions from several different topics stuck together with WP:OR. The term itself doesn't seem to be notable and even if it is the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Hut 8.5 12:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first sentence is an unattributed direct quote of the first reference. The rest of the article seems to be assembled from random unrelated snippets in the literature (WP:SYNTH). Also, this is a pattern with User:Marshallsumter's edits. See, for instance, this ANI thread. This suggests deleting with prejudice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per previous !votes. It's just a tangle of unrelated snippets. If the subject were actually notable (which I doubt) we'd have to start the article from scratch anyway. bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Future Loss

[edit]

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

notability not asserted, complete lack of secondary sources, the article seems to have been up for deletion, although under alternate capitalization. -badmachine 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article reads like a MySpace page, and Wikiedpia is not a web host. There is no coverage about this band in reliable sources. They've only managed to put out one album for which I can't find any critical reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete as nom. fails WP:BAND. -badmachine 19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satan's Blood Army Unleashed

[edit]

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

Unremarkable independent film. No significant coverage, no articles for any of the principal cast or crew. Google search on the title only brings up 38 unique returns. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable independent film. No significant coverage, what about the following films listed on wikipedia: (Toad Warrior, Max Hell Frog Warrior, Spanish Fly, Hitman City) and the list goes on and on. Clifford's film seem to have some good coverage. A Canadian Newpaper, Two Canadian Radio Stations, IMDB, An official website and six other newspapers that are not listed online that I found by going to the library newspaper search engine. Also, I've watched his films online and they are still online. His films are playing in over 60 film festivals. I found out his films played at a total of 22 so far. 23:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.135 (talk)

Delete, only released online, nothing indicates its notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the research I've done the films have played in 22 out of 60 film festivals so far, they have had an online premiere I had to pay $10 bucks to watch them, the sites say they will premiere for another two weeks only. They will be having a limited theater run in November on the 3rd and they will be released to DVD in Jan. of 2012. 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.135 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. With respects to IP 69.168.144.135, I have myslf been unable to find this film as screening at any film festival. When this one does get release, with the expected critcal commentary and review, the article can be undeleted and expanded accordingly. HOWEVER, as as you assert "six other newspapers that are not listed online that I found by going to the library newspaper search engine", we do have other Canadian editors who could confirm the coverage you found in not-online newspapers if you could share those paper's names with the publication date and page number of the articles of which you speak. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another newspaper article on Clifford Allan Sullivan. Here's the link:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2213805591&Fmt=3&clientId=80182&RQT=309&VName=PQD

20:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.134 (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klitschko brothers

[edit]

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

Each brother has his own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--assuming that each brother is notable, and that they're commonly referred to by this title, this may be keeping or revising to serve as a disambig. Meelar (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If they are referred to collectively with this name, which appears to be the case, deleting this page would make it more difficult for readers to find the articles on the individuals. As the article points out, they also do some things together, ex. share a website, do charity work, hold all the titles. The article should focus on their activities together and briefly summarize the articles on them as individuals, and it seems like it's doing a good job of that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Roscelese; if some sources actually refer to the pair of them, and if there are some things they are involved in jointly, it can be helpful to have an article for the pair. I disagree with the reasoning behind the nomination - shall we delete Canada because we already have detailed articles on every province of Canada? bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources establish notability for the topic. The article's title is also appropriate, because, per Wikipedia guidelines for common names (WP:COMMONNAME), "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, each brother already has his own article; however, they are typically discussed in relation to each other due to their unique and unprecedented dominance in this history of heavyweight boxing, i.e. never before has there been a seven year span in which two brothers cleaned out the heavyweight division and captured all of the major championships between them and yes, that is how outside sources see it. The HBO announcers even declared as much after Vitali's recent victory. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep., I agree with the above statements, think for example, the wright brothers, everyone knows them as together, this is no different.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Day

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As anticipated in the deletion review, this recreation is now being tested at AfD. The three sources listed at deletion review ([1], [2], [3]) each contain only passing mention of Day, and in each case only to frame discussion of YouTube, which is the real topic of each article and the focus of the coverage. The other sources are all either not independent of the subject (e.g., YouTube) or fail to demonstrate notability independent of his various acts (Chameleon Circuit (band) and Chartjackers). Thus, the general notability guideline is again violated, as in the last four AfDs. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination is entirely mistaken, and based on a misunderstanding of the WP:GNG. It's true that in each case, Alex Day is not the main subject of the article, but it's not necessary for him to be the main subject. All that's necessary is for it to be "more than a trivial mention". All three sources are reliable, and the mentions are non-trivial, so the GNG is passed.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG calls for "significant coverage" and specifies a requirement of "more than a trivial mention". If you're arguing that these articles mention him more than trivially (one of them spends all of two sentences on him and calls him a "wannabe comedian") then I'm going to have to disagree. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I argue below to keep, but I don't agree with the rationale given here--I think that the article really needs to be about the subject; if it's primarily about something else, a move / rename / redirect is in order. Cazort (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with S.Marshall - every instance of the deletion of this article appears hate-motivated; childish antics all contrary to the spirit of wiki guidelines - too many wiki-lawyers clutching at straws to have the article deleted time and time again, simple because they can't control their own POV, or maintain distance from things they don't like WP:JDLI. Immature nominations, waste of time. Period. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 21:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on notability. I argue to keep below but I do not think that the comments here have any content or weight here.Cazort (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero interest in personal attacks like this. Behave or be reported. Lagrange613 (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero interest in wiki-lawering. You seem to enjoy twisting guidelines to your advantage - do not threaten me. This nomination is a farce. As are your aspersions. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 22:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate grounds to argue to keep. Personal attacks will just upset people, focus on the policies and facts and argue your point, it'll be more effective. Cazort (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Behave or be reported" - is this the bullshit we have in store for the next week?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's all remember to be WP:CIVIL. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 06:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is so far out of my field, and the sources are so unfamiliar to me, that I have no opinion of notability But I think that if great popularity in any media can be shown, that, despite the wording of WP:N, it can amount to notability. The current wording is "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." But the actual effect of WP:N depends on our interpretation of what is a RS for notability, and though there are customary guidelines for that, the guidelines in WP:N must be interpreted by the community as applicable any particular case. I interpret the present understanding to be that popularity can allow for the acceptance of things as RSs for notable that we might not otherwise accept. In any case, the community can make whatever exceptions it pleases. I'll give my opinion about an exception in something I know about, but I can not reasonable give it for this, except to say that the community should allow for anything reasonable -- and keep out of Wikipedia anything not reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessarily because of the subject's notability, but mainly because the current version of this article is almost identical to the one that was deleted last October following this AfD discussion (probably the most thorough of the four previous discussions on this person). The only real changes to the article since then seem to be the addition of links to some YouTube pages (which aren't reliable sources) and general mos fixes. Very little of the actual content of the article has changed, therefore the arguments favouring deletion back then are all still valid now. I have previously espoused how I think that, if the article does exist, it needs to be written in chronological order so as to make the most logical sense to an uninformed reader. Basically, I guess what I'm saying is that this particular article should be deleted per WP:G4 and maybe WP:G11 (which I know are technically criteria for speedy deletion, but I still think they're relevant here). Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has had 1397 views in the last 30 days - they can't all be AFD regulars. A subject from an internet-only world, with only intrernet sources. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE is not a valid argument. 86.6.40.200 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning in the last AFD, there has been enough coverage for him to be considered notable under the general guidelines. I know this has been deleted and kept before, it is starting to look like a magic eightball. And this article being similar to a deleted one is not relevant to the conversation in an AFD, since it wasn't CSD. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources have now been provided showing it passes independent notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is interesting. In response to the claim that previous AfDs are 'hate-motivated', I have to strongly disagree. I am personally a great fan of Alex Day - he was the first user I ever subscribed to on YouTube (several years ago). Throughout the many AfDs all I have been trying to do is follow the rules of Wikipedia. I don't understand how this article can go through several AfDs (some of them very thorough), with all of them ending in delete because the sources don't support notability, and now suddenly the same sources are up to scratch. I am confused to say the least. —Half Price 11:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This phenomenon is nothing new, see User:Milowent/Essays/Insights#Articles_Find_A_Way:_The_Malcolm_Effect for my thoughts on this. There certainly is a case for notability here, and he is clearly quite popular online. Ray William Johnson is pretty similar. It was deleted multiple times (despite being a very popular article and at the top of youtube charts consistently, e.g., most viewed videos week after week) before I took the time to completely re-write it to show notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alex Day is no less notable than Charlie McDonnell. Day is most popular British comedian on YouTube and the article has a long list of sources. McDonnell has himself been nominated for deletion. The result was keep. No-one seems to be complain about McDonnell's article at the moment, and this has been in the deletion review. I have also corrected some grammar and out of date errors in the article. I have asked for requests for feedback before on the article, and the user stated that the page is ready to be moved. Nominal (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When reviewing the RFF I did not compare deleted versions with this one - RFFs are for considering current articles, not for resolving deletion issues. Per my unbiased RFF, I think this article suitable - I am not interested in the fan-boys and hate-kids who squabbled over its previous incarnations, and still stand by my belief that this nomination is another example of that. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 13:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Charlie has a Wikipedia page, that doesn't necessarily mean that Alex should have one too. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is an essay - essays are not wiki policy. And he didn't say "Charlie has an article, so Alex should too" - you implied that, falsely. He said "Alex is no less notable" - given that they're in the same bands, making the same music, the same type vid and jokes, same interests and travel together.. oh and living together - then it's not hard to see why they have so much in common and build up similar rapport with people. Another moot point, debunked. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 17:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources were ignored by the nominator, without any reason provided, which provide evidence of notability of the subject in independent sources:

this interview of Day, by himself, by Tom Colohue of UltimateGuitar.com
A video of him and a band member reviewing WalMart was discussed by The Huffington Post and Asylum.uk
Day was an invited speaker to VidCon, a conference celebrating work and performance on YouTube. An editor rebutted that this reference doesn't count because Day and the principal organizers of the conference are "mates," but this same argument could be said for many professors going to academic conferences, and leads to absurd conclusions. Professors in close professional circles, researching the same topics still invite each other to give talks / posters / etc. because of the quality of their work. Does that mean we should disregard the work and background of the professor that is presented at the conference? No, that doesn't really make much sense. For the same, reason, I still hold that Day's invitation to VidCon to be notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful if any of the sources you mention were in the article. I don't think "ignored... without any reason provided" is an accurate description Lagrange613 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll improve the article this evening. As the nominator, you have a responsibility to check prior AfDs before nominating. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I participated in the AfD I think you're talking about and am familiar with those sources. Consensus at the time was that they did not establish notability, and I still agree with that consensus. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All it looks like to me is that you and a few others just want to keep nominating the article for AfD again and again, until the "Keep" people get bored of arguing about it, so come the third or fourth time round they don't bother voting anymore, resulting in a low but clear "Delete" consensus from the pushers. In short, you simply appear to be using AfD to advocate your opinion under false pretences, and under-handedly abusing wiki's AfD procedure - i.e. if you can't "win" first time, keep going until you do. And don't start the "NPA" boo-hoo nonsense, we're all entitled to an opinion - and that's mine. Like it or lump it! Either way, this continuous nomination of the same article time and time again is foolish, and a waste of genuine editors time. I fail to see the "good faith" behind the nomination, or in your responses to the "Keep" people, which shows clear resentment, every time. But hey, prove me wrong, if Alex Day matters so little to you - as it seems to be that you have a bee in your bonnet about his very existence. "That" consensus is dead in the water - if you can't accept consensus read this and consider if you have any. :) Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 23:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the sources thrown together amount to enough significance. Strongest items are the Wired, VidCon, BBC, and Huffington Post (in no specific order). If there were just one such item, it wouldn't amount to much, but all taken together, it means the he is someone the media are taking note off. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these articles are specifically about this person, or contain enough coverage to establish notability? Cazort (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I answer my own question below. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and The Telegraph, as two of the most widely-read British national-level broadsheet newspapers, are also very strong sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Lagrange. Non-notable musician and entertainer. 86.6.40.200 (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)— 86.6.40.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I argued to delete in the first deletion discussion: [4] The majority of sources cited do not meet WP:RS. The article needs serious cleanup. But I'm now convinced of notability because of the combination of: [5], [6], and [7], and the fact that [8] identifies him as "genre founder" -- I think this person was not notable during the last AfD but has since become notable. Cazort (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the keep !votes might just take it... I'd just like to reiterate that, if that does turn out to be the case, then I really do still think that the entire article needs to be restructured and rewritten. It is currently laid out as follows: Chameleon Circuit -> Trock -> Sons of Admirals -> solo material -> Chartjackers -> Upstaged -> nerimon -> fiveawesomeguys -> BlogTV -> "CheekTV" (whatever that is). From what I know about this individual, it really could do with being laid out something like as follows: Early life -> nerimon -> being featured on YouTube -> building a fanbase -> fiveawesomeguys -> Upstaged -> Trock -> Chameleon Circuit -> solo material -> Chartjackers -> Sons of Admirals -> etc. etc. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. There is no vote. See WP:NOTVOTE. This discussion will either build consensus or fail to be closed with no consensus, at which point an administrator will make a decision to either keep or delete the article based on the article and the nature of the failure to reach consensus. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rephrase: "It looks like the consensus of the community will decide that this article should be kept... I'd just like to reiterate that, etc. etc." A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~Comment:~~ I'm also a little bemused by all this... So, the article didn't show Alex's notability back in 2010, but now it does? Hmmm, rather odd... $V o$ BEDD 23:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not odd at all, really. Articles that get deleted get recreated all the time, the results of AfD are not foolproof, especially in cases like this. I encourage you to edit outside the realm of Alex-Day-related articles to get a feel for this. Cheers!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not odd...I gave sources that have been found, which included some that weren't there during the first AfD. It's very common for a subject to be deleted, and then later, to become notable. Especially true of living persons, as their coverage tends to build up over time, often eventually leading to their notability. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage has been found. He "boasts more than 30,000 subscribers and is one of Britain's most popular YouTubers." Dream Focus 01:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add another 400,000 to that 30,000, and you'll be more on target. ;) Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 02:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the number of fans is relevant. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. Please consult WP:N and keep the discussion relevant to the appropriate wikipedia policies. Number of subscribers alone is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not there are reliable sources written about him...you could have far fewer subscribers but be notable if you had detailed coverage in reliable sources. And vice versa. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think number of subs which suggests popularity, denotes notability in an obscure form. I don't think your telling others what to read and discuss helps, without also giving your own keep/delete opinion - it appears to advocate a limited discussion and prevent transparency between editors - you say above there is no vote - maybe not, but a quick tally does give the admin a better idea of how the consensus sways, without having to read every word. All policies and guidelines are flexible to some degree, whilst a keep/delete vote pretty much lets you know where an editor stands, with or without comments. 2000 Keeps and 20 Deletes are stronger indication than any one long comment from a "delete" editor. And 400,000 subs and being a YT Partner are equally a greater indication of notability than 100 or so subs and nothing more - YouTube Partnership is a self-nomination process whereby YouTube considers the number of subscribers, views, videos to a degree - it also considers quality of videos to a stronger degree. With a few exceptions, a lot of YouTube Partners have international recognition - Alex Day, though a Brit, is well known in North America - his YouTube success lead to that. I think it is foolish of anyone to deny that someone with near to half a million followers is not notable in the public eye. Even if you were to remove all the dead and duplicate account in YouTube subs list - the resulting drop would average out across every YouTube channel, partner or not, maybe 20–30% - even not counting subs at all, views alone still keeps those Partners "most subbed" and "most viewed". WP:N is a guideline, not a policy - people who keep doing the "read WP:N policy" really need to take their own advice and go read the little boxes at the top before committing to the rest of the page, then they won't keep making that mistake. WP:N calls for "common sense" - so here's some for you to consider: Given that Youtube is "self contained" - i.e. the only people who register the number of subs, views, etc is Google/Youtube itself. YouTube is the primary source. 200 National newspapers could write about Alex Day, and say "Alex has 400,000 subs and has been a YT'er since ddmmyyyy, and a Partner since ddmmyyyy" - there's still only one place they can acquire that information, and the only reason they can write about him is because of his YT recognition - so if newspapers are "reliable sources" then their own source to cite has got to be YT. The rest they research, and don't always verify, before publishing - see Charlie McDonnell's latest video on being written about in The Sun - a national newspaper - a "reliable source" by Wiki RS, and yet Charlie points out several fallacies - because "RS" is an umbrella term that includes virtually all national newspapers - good or bad - which in itself is subjective matter. There are flaws in WP:N, as WP:N and WP:V don't always go hand-in-hand - leaving holes in Wiki-standards that many references fall through, because as much as the media might be "reliable", a lot of the time they publish complete bollocks. Do you think YouTube is going to falsify its own counter statistics, given that Google is a greedy, tax-evading, corporation that wants to pay Partners as little as possible from its Ad revenue and goes out of its way to not count "bloated" view counts from bots and proxies, etc? Common sense - applies to any Wiki article based on a YouTuber - without YouTube, most of these people would be serving BigMacs and never hear the word "notable". Many of the top popular YouTube Partners, whether you personally like them or not, are usually notable because they are not run of the mill amateur video makers. So, if an admin is reviewing this word for word.. that's kept them busy for a while. :) Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check below, you will see that I argued to keep before replying to your comment. And be concise. I do not agree with you that a tally of keep vs. deletes says anything about the consensus. 100 keeps and 2 deletes where the deletes make a good point and the keeps make no point at all would be a consensus to delete. And vice versa. That's the point of WP:NOTVOTE. Cazort (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His YouTube channel clearly says that he's notable by our standards. His mum probably does too. (Also, sufficient coverage in reliable sources). Will someone please go through the references and remove 2/3 of the YouTube links? There is no reason to link to the YouTube channel of every individual member, past and present, of Chameleon Circuit. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube channel is self-published and this alone says nothing about notability. The issue is whether or not independent sources have covered him. If he has a ton of fans who just view the stuff but there's nothing ever documented in any source that has any editorial integrity, that alone doesn't establish notability. I am arguing to keep above by providing sources that I claim meet WP:RS and thus meet the guidelines set out in WP:N. Please keep the discussion focused on relevant guidelines. Cazort (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and

Done - have converted all of them from in-line to citations to using the ((YouTube)) channel template which creates an in-line external link, but not as a citation - thus removing several invalid references. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that that's really an improvement. WP:CITE advises strongly against embedding external links within the main body of the article. Besides, is it really necessary to list the YouTube usernames of each and every member of CC? If there is a reliable source that lists the full names of all the the band members, then that should really be sufficient for this article. The only real reason I can think of to list all of their usernames might be if you were describing how they first came into contact with each other and became a band, but that'd really be more appropriate for the Chameleon Circuit article itself. Anyway, I think this is going beyond the scope of the purpose of this discussion. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ((Youtube)) template automatically creates an external link. Besides, it would only be contrary to WP:CITE if they were being used for citations - a citation relates to a reference to support a claim in the article - in these cases they are not supportive, they are simply linking to channels because "they exist", and were linked before I adjusted the format to a more suitable method, not because they provide any source of information. Beats having a cluttered External links section. It was a copy-edit rather than a rewrite as I do not know anything about Day or how he formed his band to alter text to what you recommend. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and leave content to article on band. I've looked through the cites that I thought might be the most reliable sources but was disappointed (a CNN link turns out to be "a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories in this section are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they are posted.", in the Guardian one Alex Day is used to bracket a thinktank report. Two sentences in passing on the Telegraphs web. Others seem to be to blogs or outside mainstream press. Among the worst is a Reddit conversation - would we include the last comment posted (contains swearing) and claim that the sourcing is good. In general my feeling is that if the citations were trimmed to just reliable sources a lot of content would fall like a house of cards and reveal that his chap is just not notable of himself.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the Reddit ref - there were about 6 refs clumped together so I removed a few trashy ones - must have missed this one - yes, it was crap. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 18:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks to Lagrange613 for making me aware of this discussion. I think Graeme's above argument is a valid one: refs 8 thru 44 are all either unreliable, self-published, dead, primary sources, or don't mention Day at all. It's similar with refs 48 to 64. Notability is not established. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few sources can be sufficient to establish notability on a case by case basis. By your math we have at least 10 references of value. The existence of excessive references which don't count towards notability doesn't mean you do some odd subtraction. What really intrigues me is why this discussion is drawing such a mix of Alex Day masturbators, pro and con.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol.. there's an apt description! I notice a lot of his previous AfD's attract a suspicious amount of anon IPs though.. haters and fangirls? Idk what they see in him, personally I think he's a bit.. "greasy" and full of himself - Charlie's a sounder, more modest, character. But both are sounder than the cons you mention - think it's time for a Keep and to stop the deletion feuding, personally. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like seven than 10, and I've not checked all seven to see which are more than just brief, passing mentions, so it's probably even fewer than that. I stand by delete. 109.204.113.111 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While most of the references in the current article are near-useless for establishing notability, the small minority which do help (identified above by Jethrobot, Martijn Hoekstra and Cazort) provide enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete the problem isn't his notoriety, the problem is the article itself!! 92.16.104.148 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That remark doesn't even warrant recognition - if there's a problem with an article it should be marked for cleanup, not deletion. Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 00:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe we should keep the article as I have mentioned above, but if the result of this dicussion is keep, then this should be the last AFD discussion about Alex Day because as MarcusBritish has said, this argument is basically fan-haters just not liking the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nominalthesecond (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not generally salted to my knowledge, especially since there are multiple criteria for deletion. If consensus ends up being that Day passes WP:GNG I'm not going to nominate it again, since in my view it's consensus that matters, but I can't think of why another editor should be stopped from doing so. Please remember to assume good faith; the (misbegotten) hostility of several members of the Keep camp during this AfD has taken me somewhat by surprise. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm bemused that this wasn't simply speedy deleted. On seeing that the article had been recreated I had assumed that there was new content and/or refs which indicated the subject was now notable. If there is such material, I'm afraid it has eluded me. The number of refs is so vast I have not checked them all, or whether they simply correspond to those used before, but they seem to be overwhelmingly from unreliable sources and/or to make minimal mention of the subject. This is so much the case that it may help the case of the article's advocates to shovel out the dross refs to see if any of value remain. I can't see anything substantial that has changed since I nominated it for deletion last October, so I may as well repeat the spiel: "Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Vast no. of refs but overwhelmingly from subjects own web sites and ones directly associated with him, blogs, other self-published sites, minor or very indirect (or even apparent non-) mentions." Doddy Wuid (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the above comments, you'll see that I and others have given concrete examples of sources we believe establish notability. This discussion got ugly, and many people are arguing to keep on poor grounds and making personal attacks. And the article is in dire need of cleanup, with most of the sources referencing self-published material. Cazort (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of the references are not reliable, but some of the references are, such as those mentioned in the proposal. If there were only one reference, then I would consider keeping but wonder if it was a fluke that this person was profiled over others. But there is not one reference; he has been profiled independently by major international news sources. The article's subject is not highly notable, but he is notable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article does seem to suffer from citation overkill (and I would personally urge the removal of information such as YouTube "most viewed" charts), but some of the citations do genuinely (and, to the point, reliably) portray, Day as a pioneering musician with genuine influence (although admittedly within a very specific niche), which is enough to convince me that this article meets our standards. Kansan (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cazort and Blue Raspberry. Yes, it needs serious cleanup, but that merits a ((cleanup)) tag, not an AfD. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soon Forgotten (Album)

[edit]

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

While it's true that the band is working on a new album ([9]), there's no proof that this is the name, and without any concrete details like a title or tracklisting, information about the album is better suited at Shinedown#Fourth studio album (2011-present). C628 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources verifying anything in the article, including the name itself. (Which seems to be the name of an old demo of theres or something?) Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The same user also created the article Last Day (album), which should be deleted on the same grounds... Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources, no verifiability, no notability. If sufficient sources appear at a future date, the article could be recreated then. bobrayner (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4 criteria -- article is essentially an exact duplicate of the previous version deleted following AFD. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice A/S

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Small 25 employee company. Most of the "references" are from the company's own site; the rest do not mention the company AFAIK (some are in Danish?). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How do I convert this to a speedy? Apparently I successfully Afd'd this in July, but it's been recreated. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can add the ((db-g4)) template to the page. I have done it for you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-rays from Eridanus

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single X-ray star

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent a large portion of my day reading this user's articles. This one in particular is nothing more than an opening paragraph of original research followed by an endless stream of what I would call blatant synthesis, except I have a hard time calling it synthesis when it is totally, absolutely incoherent and lacking any real content whatsoever. The references rarely even mention the subject of the article, if at all. Trusilver 06:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-ray dark planet

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! I do not think there is something called an X-ray Dark Planet. References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks to be a filler article. Can't find anything on the subject ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at a few things, bits and pieces of this article have been taken and plagurised from different places. See: http://flat-panel.sure-review.com/news/X-ray-dark-planet.html which matches the first part of this article perfectly. I think this may fall under speedy. Time to do some digging into his other articles to see if they are the same! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio through WP:CWW (like so many articles from this editor). The url noted by Jguy is not a problem, since it's taken from Wikipedia, although the creator does have a copyvio track record. Also bizarre WP:SYNTH, and irrelevancies like solar X-rays (the sun is not a dark planet). -- 202.124.74.73 (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion given. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wii no Ma

[edit]

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

Very Confusing. About Product. UserBobherry talk Contributions 20:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why should it be deleted, instead of improving it? Reach Out to the Truth 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No rationale offered for deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we agreed that there was not enough for an article a merger or redirect to the section on the Wii Channel article for this service would have been the more logical course of action.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explorational X-ray astronomy

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't an article on the subject of explorational X-ray astronomy, it's just a list of the important information about every space probe ever launched with a mission involving X-rays (some copied and pasted from other articles without attribution in violation of copyright). The topic itself may be encyclopedic, along the lines of Astronomy on Mars, but this article would need a fundamental rewrite in order to comply with WP:OR. Hut 8.5 11:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I want the six hours of my life back that I've spent checking references and cross-referencing this editor's articles. The subject of this article doesn't have anything to do with the article. This is nothing more than the author's bizarre tendency to create coatrack articles, upon which hang coatracks of more coatracks. While there is information in this article that is relevant and sourced, it is still a serious WP:SYNTH issue and all of this information is covered in other places on the project, only with the added bonus of being done coherently. Trusilver 06:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl rivalries in the National Football League

[edit]

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

Pure cruft. Teams meeting in the Super Bowl do not instantaneously become "rivals". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure about it being cruft. But it does appear to be an artificial construct of supposed Super Bowl "rivalries" that consists principally of a simple listing of teams that have played against each other (mostly once) in Super Bowls. Each entry is then followed with unsourced opinions as to what constitutes the "Signature Moment" in the supposed rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suitable for many personal blogs. Heck, might be enough to draw some traffic for a website. Too much original research for this forum, however.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is not discussed in reliable sources, and the "signature moment" seems to have been selected by the author rather than by reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems very crufty and as mentioned by another editor, contains a lot of original research. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 06:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic framing. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete The criticisms of the article make no sense. "Non-encyclopedic framing" has zero relevance. "Reliable sources" argument false - the article is based entirely on verifiable research. "Artificial construct" is false - these rivalries are genuine, and the "opinions" are in fact verifiable factual recaps of actual games. The criticisms of the article come across as illegitimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STP43FAN (talk • contribs) 11:21, September 12, 2011

— Note to closing admin: STP43FAN (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "Non-encyclopedic" seems to be a good description of this page. While the events of the games are verifiable and not in question, that such events lead to "rivalries" is not supported by any reliable sources, meaning the concept of this page is an "artificial construct" failing WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extrasolar X-ray source astrometry

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intraconference rivalries in the American Football Conference

[edit]

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

Redundant to National Football League rivalries, in addition to other non-encyclopedic information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of original research here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not discriminate what defines a rivalry and the scope of the entries covered by this article. Fails WP:GNG needing multiple independent resources to legitimize discussion of these rivalries under one article. —Bagumba (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while some of the rivalries are notable (Raiders-Steelers is the most obvious one there from the 1970s), this is mostly unsalvageable orginal research and should be deleted. Secret ^account 06:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content (i.e. with source noting that particular rivalry exists) to National Football League rivalries...I must say there seem to be an awful lot of rivalries given the total number of teams...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~My feeling is most of these are just one sided superficial "rivalries" from the POV of the losing team that fades a year or two later.~~—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, I'm confusing with the similiar super bowl AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're similar enough that the striked comment does sort of apply to this AfD as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source #1, for example, is about Mark Sanchez eating a hot dog during a game. That is so below the threshold of inclusion on this project. Besides, all the "sources" are YouTube videos, suggesting WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted per WP:IAR after ANI discussion (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur X-ray astronomy

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Since there are no amateur X-ray astronomers, this article is pure speculation, with references for padding. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be entirely or almost entirely original research. References cited are either about rocketry or satellites and don't mention X-rays, about devices for detecting X-rays and don't mention astronomy or are about X-ray astronomy that isn't being done by amateurs. Much of the text is speculation and suggestions about the sort of things amateur astronomers could do involving X-rays. A Google search for the term produces almost no results that aren't derived from this Wikipedia article. Hut 8.5 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure original research. --S Larctia (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that CorenSearchBot tagged this, but more to the point how did this get through new page patrol? Oh, I see, it was autopatrolled. I also see that a G1 speedy was declined, but a PROD might have been better than an AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugo Farell

[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage. No notability was shown since the article was first created in 2001. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After ten years and a good faith search it seems pretty unlikely that evidence of notability is going to be forthcoming.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; doesn't appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First X-ray source in Hydrus

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish...basically a copy of the article creator's other "First X-ray source pages". Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First X-ray source in Pictor

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish...basically a copy of the article creator's other "First X-ray source pages". Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete According to the lead sentence, this is a non-event. Why does the article talk about other celestial bodies? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First X-ray source in Cancer

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish...basically a copy of the article creator's other "First X-ray source pages". Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, synthesis, copyright issues, etc. --S Larctia (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First X-ray source in Andromeda

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish...basically a copy of the article creator's other "First X-ray source pages". Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The subject seems too specialised. It should be merged to Andromeda Galaxy, or the article in question is about. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing worth keeping -- WP:OR and duplication of other articles. -- 202.124.73.9 (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First X-ray source in Volans

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Yup, another example of Marshallsumter's gibberish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's not a coherent article on the subject, it's just a bunch of unrelated phrases that are jumbled together. bobrayner (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G7 per author's comments below. lifebaka++ 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etchings in the dead wax

[edit]

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

Promotional article for a self published novel from a nn author (with no article). No claims of notability. Contested PROD. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A notable article with encyclopedic content. Although the novel has been self published it managed to become a Canadian bestseller (Am trying to locate sales figures however information below should more than confirm the books importance, encyclopedic veracity, and obvious notability). This novel is very prolific throughout its internet visibility and as well in notable print articles. The novel is also a part of library collections in Canada nationwide see the following links:

http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM2596928&R=2596928 (this link also shows that the book has been catalogued for permanent reference in the Canadian Reference Library confirming the books notability with the government of Canada)

and

http://discover.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca/?q=etchings+in+the+dead+wax&searchOption=http%3A%2F%2Fdiscover.halifaxpubliclibraries.ca&FreeFormFields=Title%2CCreator%2CISBN&advSearch=oneword

and

http://vpl.bibliocommons.com/item/show/2013067038_etchings_in_the_dead_wax

It has also received many positive reviews see link:

http://www.casinoadvisor.com/etchings-in-the-dead-wax-editor-review.html

The novel also appears on multiple other internet "wiki" pages already which confirms unbiased interest and notability. See links:

http://etchings.wikia.com/wiki/Etchings_in_the_Dead_Wax_Wiki

and

http://www.wikigrain.org/?req=Etchings+in+the+Dead+Wax

and

http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/Etchings_in_the_Dead_Wax

The novel also appears on many independent book lists such as google books. See Link:

http://books.google.com.ag/books/about/Etchings_in_the_Dead_Wax.html?id=MdmCPgAACAAJ

The author also has a second book out titled Charleswood Road with prolific coverage in both print and online. There exists many notable self-published books and example of which is D H Lawrence's "Lady Chatterly's Lover". Your request for article deletion on this article is prejudicial in nature and is contradictory to the very idea of an encyclopedia. Article Etchings in the Dead Wax should proceed for approval. Please remove discriminating selection for deletion. Dandylandy (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Dandylandy[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It currently ranks #831,599 on Amazon.ca's bestsellers in books. If this had truly become a Canadian bestseller, that would be more, and we would find some independent reviews or other significant coverage. --Lambiam 01:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete/Keep who cares"" The above comment by Lambian is unfounded. He/she states that a single multi departmental online mega store's ranking (which is in fact an American company) holds some sort of bearing on sales in Canada. Be aware that Stephen King's book listed below is well over 100,000.00 under the very same Amazon ranking system. See link:

http://www.amazon.ca/Bachman-Books-Stephen-King/dp/0340952253/ref=pd_sim_b_7

We all know Stephen King as a bestseller unequivocally. So why so low? Lambian did you actually review the links I provided? There is irrefutable evidence of the books notability in the above links. It would appear that unless the book is American by an American author deletion is imminent. I could easily provide over a hundred articles written on wiki with much less substantial evidence provided and bias that received approval compared to this entry. Ultimately who cares! Delete the entry. It's shocking that the folks at wiki feel that inclusion of this article would hold significant bearing if any at all on the success of book still in print after 2 years. I just thought a lot of people would enjoy obtaining further information about a book they love. It would appear WIKI does not care for such things. Funny I thought this was an encyclopedia. Dandylandy (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Dandylandy[reply]

Delete, another aspiring author who ran out of money paying to publish their book and decided to use a free encyclopedia to promote it rather than advertising the normal way. Non-notable, no coverage in reliable sources, claims of it being a bestseller or similar to Lawrence or King are laughable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""Delete"" Please delete this article immediately. I was not comparing this authors work to King's or Lawrence's. I put this up with nothing but good intentions but did not expect this type of derogatory commentary towards someone's work by people who are supposed to by unbiased and somewhat intellectual. I feel terrible having listed an authors work here to come under fire with such terrible ridicule and scrutiny. PLEASE DELETE THIS ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY! Or I will remove remove the content myself. The wiki members above should be careful what they write as it borders on libel as they attack a person's work without providing any proof or material (unlike what I have provided) to their cause. I have written something here about someone's work which has caused people to attack the work in question and we have no right to do that. Please delete the article and comments immediately. Dandylandy (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Dandylandy[reply]
Speedy Delete Per the only editor's request under G7 criteria. Even if they had not, this is obviously a single purpose account promoting a self published and totally non-notable book. A hint, unless you create a self-published book under truly bizarre/unique circumstances, (see: Atlanta Nights) or it hits a reputable best seller list, it's not notable. Trusilver 03:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MetLife Bowl

[edit]

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

Non-notable NFL rivalry, the teams have only played in one game thus far in the "bowl" and it was a preseason game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to PROD this article in August, but when it was objected, I stopped to think that there must be enough for a Jets–Giants rivalry page, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eagles. There was no article for the Giants Stadium Bowl nor was there for the New Meadowlands Stadium Bowl. I find it is impractical to create the MetLife Bowl just because the stadium has a sponser for the next twenty years. I'd be more inclined to follow Muboshgu's idea and create a Jets-Giants rivalry page. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would create that article, but really the MetLife Bowl is nothing more than a rewording of the Jets-Giants rivalry, if one does indeed exist. Of course, the article in question in this AfD has essentially no content other than the results of the one preseason game. My point is that I'm not sure if this should be moved to "Jets-Giants rivalry" and fixed up, deleted and a new page made, or if there is even any difference between those two options. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only time the rivalry has truly been "intense" was when both teams played for the first time on August 17, 1969 in their little "turf war". Since then they have only met in mostly meaningless preseason games and do not meet enough in the regular season to form a rivalry similar to that of the Jets and Patriots. Furthermore, I highly doubt the bickering between over who is the little brother and who is the big brother is enough to warrant its own article. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 22:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My attempt to present references suggesting a Jets-Giants rivalry, without further comment: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Don't think the MetLife Bowl itself can be said to be very notable, as it is a one-time preseason game as of now. It's not like the teams haven't been playing preseason games against each other for years now, because they have. The difference is that they weren't playing in a stadium sponsored by MetLife. The Giants–Jets rivalry may very well be notable enough for an article, but that's a different topic that would require a different emphasis. The preseason games as a whole are worthy of a mention there, not just this bowl game in particular. I normally prefer to see content kept and edited in cases like this, but here I think starting over from scratch will be the more effective method. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's an advertising ploy by Met Life. Met Life is notable. The Jets are notable. The Giants are notable. Nothing about this series is notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all say that pre season games are not included as rivalry or that there is no such thing as a MetLife Bowl and say that its just a one time thing at the moment. But you didn't read the articles where its stats that the game was named the MetLife Bowl name was given due to both teams co-own and play together at the stadium. There was no Giants Stadium Bowl cause the Giants owned the stadium and let the Jets play in the stadium after 10 years the stadium was built or so, and including that there was no New Meadowlands Stadium Bowl. There is a reason for that because the president of MetLife created the name, MetLife Bowl, I believe it was the president. It also stats that future games no matter pre season or regular season they will call the games MetLife Bowl, hell my be even the Super Bowl; if they would happen, To have some pride under the new name of the stadium. Manly the pre season due to they always play in the pre season. I bet future pre season games would be played the same way by letting their starters play most of the game.

Past history against the Jets and Giants can have a section in the MetLife Bowl as "Past Jets-Giants Rivalry" or "Before MetLife Bowl" or etc. Mr. Unknown (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it exists doesn't make it notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the Future it will, but why not get started now since the entire Staff of the Jets, Giants, and MetLife recognize it as a rivalry with the new name and in the future the jets-giants rivalry will be commonly know as the MetLife Bowl no matter pre season or regular season. Once again in the future it will be more recognize but why not get the page started now.Mr. Unknown (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to assume that this "bowl" series will become notable in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how far in the future can I or who ever wants re create the MetLife Bowl. Including is it possible at the moment to create a page for the full history of the Jets-Giants Rivalry since they should have a page because they are both NYC teams even thought they mostly play in the pre season and that they are both in different conferences. A similar page just like with MLB Subway Series. --Mr. Unknown (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is the rivalry doesn't revolve around the company, plain and simple. Granted, MetLife is free to promote it as much as its hearts content BUT, that does not characterize the 'entire rivalry at all, it is just a name the company decided to slap on because they can. Now if the page was the Jets-Giants rivalry then you could make a mention that they decided to name it the MetLife Bowl but this does not deserve its own article. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 03:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine with go ahead and remove the page.--Mr. Unknown (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above, though I may use those sources to create Jets-Giants rivalry after this is closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now created Jets–Giants rivalry. Flame away, or help improve it. Whichever. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the first X-ray source in a constellation

[edit]

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

Unnecessary article. Why have such a list? Just seems like trivia. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:L, part of creator's WP:SYNTH farm--Cerejota (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the first X-ray source per constellation

[edit]

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete part of creator's WP:SYNTH farm.--Cerejota (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's just a mishmash of WP:SYNTH. bobrayner (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No reason to prolong this further. No clear consensus for deletion. Lots of good arguments for keep outcome. It is entirely possible that my original non-admin close could be considered as over the line in terms of contentiousness, I feel some confidence in closing this discussion now. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Patton (archaeologist)

[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:AUTHOR with no secondary coverage. Books by this author are cited by reviews in the single-digits. Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I mentioned when removing the earlier PROD, the relevant guideline is WP:ACADEMIC, and as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts Patton meets criteria 3. The lack of sources does need to be addressed, but note that, also per WP:ACADEMIC, coverage in secondary sources is not a requirement. joe•roe^t•c 21:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is no reference to verify that he's a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More fundamentally, that the Royal Society of Arts "has more than 27,000 Fellows...who have achieved — or who have the potential to achieve — eminence in their profession or calling" tells us that being one of its Fellows isn't the kind "highly selective honor" called for in WP:ACADEMIC. -- post by 75.150.76.129 -- sorry, I forgot to sign
Comment: I prodded this originally because I could not find sources beyond the fact that he's done research on the Channel Islands. My main concern was getting it off the unreferenced BLP list (now down to less than 1,000!), so am open to keeping of verifiability and bare notability can be shown.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to addition of sources, I am not opposed to keeping it. He may still be marginal, but I'm not sure enough of that to advocate deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From the General notes section of WP:ACADEMIC: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. For the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details. So, no sources no keep. As for the unsigned delete vote above, WP:ACADEMIC does mention being an elected member of the Royal Society as a qualification, the subject of this article is aledgedly an elected member of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, I do not know enough about these institutions to say if one is more prestegious or selective than the other, but again without verification the article should not be kept. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is a royal society, but it's not The Royal Society (i.e. The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge), which is the one WP:ACADEMIC means (and links to -- see Royal_Society_(disambiguation)). It's confusing, I know. (That's not to say that none of the "other" Royal Societies of This and That might not qualify as WP:ACADEMIC's "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association," but Arts, Manuf., & Commerce certainly doesn't -- see earlier post.) 75.150.76.129 (talk) 21:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His work on the Archaeology of the Channel isles seems respected with his books having been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (American Journal of Archaeology, American Antiquity, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Journal of Anthropological Research). I have added some to the article. This seems to me a clear pass of WP:Author#3. Being elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and as governor of the Museum of London also help.(Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- These one-page reviews are the kind routinely made of most new books in many disciplines -- not what WP:AUTHOR has in mind. Re the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce, see two posts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.76.129 (talk • contribs)
Thank you for adding sources!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 3 September 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, BusterD (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment As a non-admin, I previously closed this procedure. At the request of an editor, I've reopened and relisted this discussion for further comment. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I'm not seeing the reviews as meeting WP:GNG for the author. I'm also not seeing the fellow as being as selective as, say, an IEEE fellowship or anything else I'd consider to meet the intent of WP:ACADEMIC. It is close and with primary sources we can get there, but I just don't see the sources needed. Hobit (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Msrasnw. If his books get covered, he is notable. Dream Focus 23:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was confused by the cites to the reviews which seem to list him as an author of the reviews. I've (finally) gotten access to at least a few and I have to agree, the reviews are independent. Hobit (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources added to article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources added to article demonstrate his notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with Hobbit, I feel the reviews demonstrate the notability DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin procedural close. Article was Deleted by Timotheus Canens per ANI discussion.. Trusilver 07:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of human ATPase genes

[edit]

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

Not an actual list as per WP:L lots of copyvio by non-attribution of edits. Cerejota (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and discuss. This is funny. "ATPases" and "ATP synthases" are actually the same proteins. Still, there is no any rush to delete. Let people who understand the subject to look at this, discuss, and possibly merge/redirect.Biophys (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has been produced by copying from other articles (WP:CWW). This is not a list, it's a set of copies. -- 202.124.74.73 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not some sort of information supercollider: articles cannot be smashed together into other articles ad infinitum for no good reason. -- The Anome (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, for the several reasons given below — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 00:13, September 12, 2011

Inhibitory peptide

[edit]

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

At first glance this seems like an exception for this editor's WP:SYNTH farm, but a look at the sourcing an material shows significant copy-and-paste from other articles, as well as copy-vios, and other issues. This topic exists and should be addressed in the wiki, but unless the WP:ARS can get to it and reshap it, it is better to have no info than bad info. Cerejota (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to enzyme inhibitor for the moment. The current content needs to be scrapped, but it's something we need an article for eventually. --S Larctia (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can second that.--Cerejota (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as noted above. Insufficient content for using an old version.Novangelis (talk) 19:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve for the following reasons. (1) Using this was not a copyright violation (it tells "Abstract free"); Comment (2) The subject does not belong to "enzyme inhibitors" (suggested redirect) because transmembrane channel is obviously not an enzyme; (3) this should be simply renamed to "peptide inhibitors", an important and legitimate subject. Biophys (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because of copyvio. Copying from the source noted above is indeed a copyright violation; "free" in this context does not mean "public domain" or "GNU licensed" -- it simply means you can read that copyrighted material without paying. Note the phrase "Copyright © 2011 by American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology." -- 202.124.72.60 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. It may well be that someone can produce a "clean" version of this article, but it legally cannot be hosted by Wikipedia while we wait for some editor to do that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bupa Cromwell Hospital

[edit]

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

This is a private hospital, one of a number owned by the company BUPA. All the given reference does is say "It exists, it is owned by BUPA". It does not establish notability. Given that Wikipedia is not a directory - that is not meant to list every single public or private hospital in the UK - then this should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd be happy to retain an article on a hopsital - public or private - regardless of ownership, if the hospital passed the GNG. This one doesn't. bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a famous hospital usually known simply as "Cromwell Hospital", without the BUPA branding. Loads of reliable sources can be found by searching accordingly: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Cromwell Hospital. This hospital is one of London's major private hospitals -- possibly the biggest -- and frequently mentioned in news stories. I've fleshed the article out a bit to reflect this. -- The Anome (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would suggest that this article should revert to its original title of Cromwell Hospital, as that is the name by which it it is generally known, and by which it was officially known for most of its existence. To have the title include the current, possibly ephemeral, branding smacks of recentism. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources in the article that establish notability of the topic. Also, the current name of the hospital is "Bupa Cromwell Hospital"— therefore the article's title is appropriate. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:COMMONNAME we should use the name by which independent reliable sources refer to the subject, not what has been decided by a corporate branding exercise. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum

[edit]

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

A db-spam was removed without comment by an IP. I maintain that this article is irredeemably spammy: it is nothing but an advertisement for the forum. Note, for instance, the link that the IP removed--it's travel information. Note also the long list of announced speakers--that is nothing short of a directory of big names, intended to draw a crowd. Finally, note the number and type of external links. As for the topic itself: it is not notable. I wonder if the creator, who also brought you 6th KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum (also at AfD), isn't here to promote the Kazach energy industry. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic's notability is established per several reliable sources already in the article, particularly the Tengri News article, a reliable objective news source with editorial integrity, the Rogtec Magazine article (which is NOT a copy and paste of a press release, it is an article in a magazine, although there may be content within the article that is also verbatim in other articles, but not all of it), which satisfy each of Wikipedia's General notability guidelines, including the existence of significant coverage of the topic, source reliability and editorial integrity, sources being secondary sources and sources being independent of the subject. Additionally, there are additional reliable sources in the article that verify the content within the article, specifically International Information Centre of the Republic of Kazakhstan, ITE Group, and others. Many of the rationales for deletion are based upon the nominator's opinion rather than checking for reliable sources, which is necessary to to perform prior to nomination in Articles for deletion. Please refer to WP:BEFORE, "Before nominating an article for deletion," particularly point B2, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See "Sourcing search" below)" and D1, "Sourcing search", "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Qualification for this article's deletion hasn't been established, because the nominator hasn't qualified deletion per Wikipedia guidelines (stated above), and the rationale for deletion is based upon opinion. The nominator didn't state anything about searching for reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Northamerica, the nominator (who has a name) has been around the block a few times--a few times more than you, I might add. I don't have to add "ooh, I couldn't find any reliable sources"--you'll just have to accept that I couldn't find any, so next time don't repeat all that crapola, citing BEFORE and all that--it's a waste of electrons. As for my opinion--how shall I put this delicately--don't be an ass. The same applies to you. For instance it is your opinion that this is a reliable source. I am not so convinced (and this is not positive either). And ask yourself, it if wasn't for 'legendary' Larry King, would that be written in the first place? King, who probably commands a hefty sum for showing up there? Then, that you claim that there are sources that verify content in the article--so what? We're discussing notability, not reliability. I have no doubt that there are sources that verify the content, and I have no doubt that those sources get that information from exactly the same place that our creator got it: the program. Have you not noticed that the article is a program? Have you not noticed that there is no secondary coverage that says anything about this forum, even something not interesting? But I've already wasted too many words here. One thing: stop telling me what to do. I know what to do, and unlike you, I can tell the difference between an encyclopedic article and an advertisement (or a piece of nonsense, like that Repellor vehicle). Drmies (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, it is a complete spam and advertisement piece. Refs point to the 6th version of the forum which is up for AfD and leaning delete or the refs have nothing todo with the forum. Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed unless the article can provide Wikiworthy WP:N. All the peacockery and puffiness and advertising about upcoming event(s) need to go. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article has been significantly expanded with additional reliable sources that verify content within the article expansions, and in other areas of the article. New reliable sources include The Wall Street Journal, The St. Petersburg Times, and many others. The article's topic is notable and worthy of having a standalone article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually expanded on that puff piece? Why? Well, this is not making that subject any more notable (which is obvious to anyone) than it is. That article and this say that some dude is the head of the Kazenergy association--so what? Drmies (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment – Per Drmies's message directly above this message, the link he referred to verifies information within the article, specifically, that Timur Kulibayev is indeed the present Chairman of the Association. This serves to increase the credibility of the article's content. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Wall Street Journal and St. Petersburg Times pieces never mention the Forum. How in the world does that do anything to establish notability or anything that was said in article? There are already several refs that refer to Kulibayev being the head of the Association. Adding more refs to things not related to the article is just adding fluff. Bgwhite (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Wall Street Journal article discusses the Kazenergy Association, whom founded The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum, which serves verify information in the article. Verifiability is important to substantiate facts in Wikipedia articles. The St. Petersburg Times article also verifies information in the article. Rather than a blanket deletion of this article, why not contribute to the article? Refer to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM for some useful information. The article covers significant topics regarding contemporary global energy matters. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Re-hashed press releases do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added more reliable sources to this article, which further qualifies the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. New reliable sources include: The Kyiv Post and the Kazakhstan Today news agency. These are reliable sources that substantiate the topic's notability, and also verify information in the article. There are many more reliable sources available from this Google news archive search here. Please refer to these links when considering the topic's notability. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update – In addition to the above, many new reliable sources from news sources were added to the article as inline citations. These sources establish this topic as notable per Wikipedia General notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Check out this exceptional news article from Euronews - "Kazakhstan: the new energy frontier." The article's topic is obviously notable per this and many, many other sources available. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which, rather unexceptionally, mentions that the prime minister spoke at the conference. And says nothing about it. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In light of the significant addition of reliable sources to the KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum article that qualifies notability of this topic, and the availability of additional reliable sources that establish stated notability, I propose that this AfD discussion be relisted to generate a more thorough discussion. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage of the topic in reliable independent sources. Information agencies promoting the country, mentions of notable people attending conferences, recycled press releases, quasi-advertising, etc. do not establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 02:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you actually check all of the references in the article and for the availability of reliable sources, or are you stating that there is absolutely "no" coverage whatsoever on the planet that constitutes reliable sources to qualify the nobability of this topic? I disagree with the assessment above by user Bongomatic. For an objective assessment, please refer to the following reliable sources, which are NOT recycled press releases, quasi-advertising, promotional, etc. as stated in the above message by user Bongomatic. Furthermore, of course the sources mention notable world leaders, former world leaders, heads of multinational corporations, etc. whom have attended the forums and what they stated at them; why wouldn't they? This is part of objective news reporting: reporting notable facts. Please refer to the following: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. I also think you're making a false correlation regarding the topic of press releases and the topic of reliable sources. Under your apparent rationale, press releases are being "recycled", which is untrue in these sources listed above. Under the rationale you've mentioned, it appears that your opinion is that if any information in news sources is also present in press releases, then the reliability of the news source is somehow immediately reduced or dismissible, under a blanket, generic rationale that the information is "recycled," which is false. Under this rationale, anything reported in the press that is also mentioned in a press report or press release somehow nullifies the reliability of the news source, which is illogical. In other words, per your rationale, if similar data is present in two mediums, then source reliability is somehow lessened, which again, is illogical and untrue. There are no verbatim copies of press releases in any of the sources listed above, period. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User Bongomatic above refers to some of the sources I've researched and provided as "information agencies", which is incorrect. Some of the reliable sources are from "News Agencies". Per Merriam-Webster, the definition of news agency is: ": an organization that supplies news to subscribing newspapers, periodicals, and newscasters." For example, the Associated Press is a news agency. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another reliable source found that further qualifies topic notability, also added as an inline citation in the article: (October 4, 2009.) "Kazakhstan may pump crude to Europe through Azerbaijan." New Europe, Brussels News Agency. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The sources cited in the comment above are addressed in order:

Euronews: mention of comments made, and description of quoted individual as chairman.
Tengri: coverage relating to Larry King, coverage of subject for context.
Al Bawaba: coverage relating to Cheney, passing mention of subject.
Investkz.com: coverage in magazine promoting Kazakhstan business, not independent (possibly government-sponsored—by the way by "information agency" I meant agency of the government or industry promoting a government or industry agenda, not an independent source intended to be balanced).
Kazakh embassy: government organ.
KyivPost: passing mention relating to Schroeder.
Kommersant: passing mention.
Trend: passing mention in context of reporting on comments of one participant.
Trend: explicit rehash of press release.
Kazpravda.kz: appears local, non-independent, and possibly opinion rather than news piece. Source unlikely to be judged capable of demonstrating notability.
WSJ: mention only in the context of describing quoted individual's role.
Tengri: mention only in the context of describing quoted individual's role.
Khabar Television: regional coverage of (then) current event not establishing notability.
PR Newswire: press release.
Kazakhstan Today: local promotional coverage of current event.
Regnum: Repost from other news agencies. ^Bongo_matic 05:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, the reply above by user Bongomatic appears to be subjective assessments made to qualify a predetermined opinion to delete the article "no matter what", rather than an objective assessment regarding the topic's notability. For example, as stated above, "Trend: explicit rehash of press release.", per the order presented above refers to: "Second Eurasian Energy Forum KazEnergy to be Held in Astana." The news article is from a news agency, and only a minute portion of the article quotes from a press release, which is directly stated in the article, per the following (verbatim) from the article:

"The goal of the forum is to discuss actual issues on the development of oil and energy, survey of analytical information, development of proposals and recommendations, co-ordination of general approach to create efficient legislative mechanisms and practice instruments of functioning in the economy,” stated a press-release distributed by the company."

The rest of the article is not a duplicate or rehash of a press release whatsoever. Perhaps user Bongomatic could provide a copy of the press release from the second forum as a comparison. As stated, Bongomatic's assessment is based upon opinion, rather than facts.

Additionally, some of these articles are short articles, and mentions of the KaZenergy Eurasian Forum will naturally be lessened in short articles. It's unnecessary to state the name of the forum repeatedly in short articles.

Another example, as quoted above by user Bongomatic, "PR Newswire: press release." is absolutely false. Here's the link "Kazakh PM Invites Eni and EU Commissioner for Talks on Kashagan.", and here's the text:

"ASTANA, Kazakhstan, September 6 /PRNewswire/ -- In his opening address to the KazEnergy forum in Astana today, Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov invited Eni CEO, Paolo Scaroni, to visit Kazakhstan to discuss issues related to the Kashagan oil field at his earliest convenience.

The Prime Minister also invited Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs - who warned last Friday that the EU could act if companies' rights are threatened - for talks. Mr Massimov..."

This is an excerpt from a business article, and is NOT a press release. Again, I suggest that user Bongomatic provides a press release for comparison to qualify this statement. Without a valid comparison, the statement provided by user Bongomatic is again, opinion, and unsubstantiated by facts.

I'm sorry, but which part of "PRNewswire" is unclear to you? Have you even looked at the article for that outfit, PR Newswire? Perhaps the sentence "Today, PR Newswire is hired by corporations, public relations firms and non-governmental organizations to deliver news and multimedia content" provides a modicum of insight. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above-quoted data from user Drmies is from unreferenced information in the PR Newswire Wikipedia article. Rather, please refer to the "about us" section of the publication that published the data, here, "Goliath is The Gale Group, Inc.'s online-business content service, providing global company and industry intelligence to business executives. Goliath provides immediate online access to more than three million records including business articles, industry reports, company profiles and executive contacts pulled from business data resources maintained by The Gale Group, Inc. The site serves a range of business needs - from starting a company, to researching an existing company and reviewing best practices, to retrieving recent business news." Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes, that is what the quote means. Do you read the National Enquirer? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully a more objective assessment of the topic's notability will be undertaken by others. As the assessment above by user Bongomatic exists, it is quite ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations, in part due to the simplistic nature of the statements. With all due respect, it's also counterproductive to spend significant amounts of time disqualifying short, simple, ambiguous and false statements such as those above that have been refuted here. Again, it appears that the reliable sources are being viewed inobjectively to qualify a predetermined stance to delete the article "no matter what", rather than upon the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, the arguments from user Bongomatic in the reply above may be misleading to other readers of this AfD. Please be sure to read the article's yourselves, rather than rely upon the summary provided by user Bongomatic. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden in the jungle of verbosity, above, is a set of really swell personal attacks on the integrity and good faith of Bongomatic. "With all due respect" is, with all due respect, BS--your predetermined stance seems to be that every single mention in every possible news release and on every possible website is proof of a subject's notability. Bongo's short but to-the-point statements nicely contrast your not so short and woefully-straying-from-policy claims. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with the above criticism from user Drmies. AfD is about a topic's notability. User Drmies isn't addressing the sources I provided, and isn't taking the time to be specific about them. This person is just agreeing with another user's statements without qualifying the rationale of the other user's statements, instead providing a summary of how they "contrast." Also, rather, than addressing the sources, the comment is based upon ad hominen argument, making statements about a person who made a statement rather than addressing the statement itself. The statements above are also assumptive. I haven't stated that every possible website is proof of anything, let alone a subject's notability. This isn't my belief. Nobody has the right to state what another person's beliefs are in this manner. It's inappropriate, and baseless. Again, please read the articles, and judge them based upon their merits, rather than engaging in ad hominen arguments, which are logical fallacies. The above statement does nothing to provide rationale to either qualify or disqualify the topic's notability, which is the purpose of AfD. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were the one who was referring to Bongo's edits as too short and misleading, as opinionated and biased. FYI, less is more, Northamerica1000. But I'm not going to waste any more time addressing this verbiage. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I added a Times Online article reference to the article which talks about KazEnergy but not the KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum. I'm seeing a lot of PR hype here but no independent meat. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many sources in the article, and available sources, refer directly to the The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum, which serves to qualify notability of the topic. The news articles referenced in the article are from reliable news sources with a reputation of integrity, and are independent of the topic. Can you be more specific? What does "independent meat" mean? Are you referring to the article or the references? What do you mean by "PR hype"? Does this mean that any information that is reported in mass media is invalid if similar information is in a press report? If you're referring to public relations, how does the content and prose within the article qualify a pronouncement of being the one-word description of "hype?" Are you reading the entire article, and the manner in which the information and references in the article supports the premise of the article? Sometimes sources are used to verify information within an article. Have you researched any other sources that may be available? In the age of infotainment, U.S. mass media often ignores topics such as these, because they are less popular, which brings in less viewers and readers, which equates to less advertising profits. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing much development. What I see is expansion upon puffery with list of chronological event and trying to establish notability of other things that do not make this organization more notable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cunnie Williams

[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can see nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He appears to be more successful in France than in the USA. Reviews of his work in Le Parisien are spread over multiple years, and compare his voice to Barry White: [37], [38], [39]. I found evidence that at least one album sold quite well. That is sufficient to meet general notability guidelines. He has also released 4 to 6 (depending on if you count the remix, and the "best of") albums on Universal Music France which meets biographies for musicians guildeines point 5. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, have added new info to article, thanks for your research. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've cleaned up the article and added more information with citations. He has had hits songs and at least one hit album as documented by Billboard. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, nominator withdraws, and no other editor advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 10:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Colucci (antiquarian)

[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can find nothing to support WP:NOTABILITY. Only reference is in Italian, and I couldn't find any English language ones. He is described as a 'prolific writer', which suggests possibility of notability, but it isn't backed up. It's been tagged as of unclear notability for 4 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edn) refers to him as ‘a famous writer on the antiquities of Picenum’.[40] That in itself seems sufficient to establish his notability. Furthermore, though, Google book search throws up hundreds of references to him, even after you eliminate his two principal namesakes, and there are a fair number of citations in Google scholar search. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here—why didn’t I think to look there first?—is the article on him in the Dizionario biografico degli italiani, the approximate equivalent to the British DNB. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — maybe rather than discussing deletion here, we should be filing an afc request on italian wp, as they only have this. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — clearly notable. this google scholar search (not all hits about this guy) shows that there is discussion of his work, as does this google books search. heck, britannica even called him famous. there are four articles on jstor if you have access that discuss the guy. lousy article, but notability is clear. the fact that it isn't backed up is not a reason to delete. (sorry for duplication of some of above; edit conflict) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Many reliable sources establish notability of the topic. Sources can be in any language. For help with translations, refer to Yahoo Babelfish, a language translator. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrw nomination for deletion I'm glad others could find so much - it removes the concerns I had. Could I ask those who've found info to add some to the article if they have time? Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Price (Call of Duty)

[edit]

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

Unremarkable videogame character - no real indications of notability outside the game. Redirects to Call of Duty were contested, so bringing it here. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my posting at Talk:Captain Price (Call of Duty): Abc.net.au, GanesRadar.com, CrispyGamer.com, Game Informer, 360magazine.co.uk, VG247, TotalVideoGames.com, PSU.com, OXM.co.uk, OCWeekly.com, GamerLive.tv, MyGaming.co.za, and GameFront.com. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - there is some coverage in Odie5533's sources, which merits some coverage of this character in the main article if not a seperate article. --Simone (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character, if we're getting rid of this we may as well be loosing Cloud Strife and Mario. Mrmccollough (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of three tallest structures in the world

[edit]

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

Hmmmm, not sure what to do about this one. I guess deletion is the best answer, although that's too bad.

The concept is not necessarily flawed, but the execution is not up to par, and I don't see how to fix it. It mainly consists of charts, which apparently use some app called EasyTimeline. But the page is showing a big error message "Invalid image map generated by EasyTimeline". In addition, the charts are hard to read (unreadable in parts) and just not up to our information display standards I don't think.

It's all done with a bunch of quite complicated-looking formatting code that is way above my pay grade to fix, and it's been this way for a while and I don't know if anyone is ever going to fix it. The person who created it, User:Najro, is no longer active.

And the text part of the article seems to be unreferenced original research.

I think we'd be better off taking it down, it's not of the quality we want to host and isn't an asset to our reputation. Herostratus (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (somehow) Maybe as a list article? Very interesting and encyclopedic content. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good facts and encyclopedic content however problem with article is about reference Sehmeet singh Talk 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what what is this encyclopedic and not a Timeline of the four tallest structures in the world? etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would seem to serve Wikipedia's aim of providing gazetteer-like material. It needs references and I'm not sure if the standard for inclusion (can carry more than its own weight, not buoyed up by water) is accepted or arbitrary, but these problems are fixable, I believe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting if believable; but alas three is a subjective decision, why not 5? 20? and there is no indication that any reliable source exists that talks about the top 3 tallest structure, rather than the tallest one. Should we have another article for the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... n ... tallest, fattest, biggest, smallest, oldest, youngest, heaviest, furthest, longest, shortest, etc. everything? that's what this invites. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of rewrite The article could be fixed, but I'm wondering "why?" Does it present useful information that is not already adequately covered in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world (for example) or the many other 'tall ...' articles in this encyclopedia? I have already commented on the talk page about I think is wrong with this article's presentation and style. Unfortunately, I have not had time to revisit the article for the promised fixing and no one else has stepped up either. To help others with a possible rewrite, EasyTimeline is a MediaWiki extension and is explained here and it might help explain the bold red error message. Astronaut (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended comment: In my opinion, the liberal use of [citation needed] tags is not so problematic; the tagged phrases simply lay out the criteria for inclusion and were tagged in error back in Jan 2010. The lack of clear criteria is quite a problem for many 'tall...' articles due to random prople adding their favourite building without studying the intention of the article - I've lost count of the number of times I have removed the Milad Tower from the List of tallest buildings and structures in the world for example. I'm tempted to remove the [citation needed] tags. And over at Talk:List of tallest structures in the world by country#Changes I have suggested trimming the lists and setting out a clear set of criteria for inclusion. The problem of why only the three tallest are listed is also less of an issue, you have to call a halt to any list sometime so why not three which seems to fit many people's screen width OK. Astronaut (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All that's arguable (and did you mean "Delete or rewrite" in your bolded comment?). My main brief, and reason I submitted the article is 1) it's not OK to have an article with an error message and 2) more arguably, error message or no, the charts are ugly and difficult to decipher and in parts unreadable, and 3) it's existed this way for quite a while and it's reasonable to assume that it may do so for years more or forever. Granted we usually don't delete articles for content problems, but if in fact no one is going to fix it it's a reasonable solution (it can always be recreated). I'm not going to read up on EasyTimeline and delve into that, and is anybody? Who will bell the cat? Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because the topic doesn't seem to meet notability. Why 3, and not 5 or 10? Certainly the documenting the tallest (1) has been covered, and a history is included in List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. In other words, there is no need for this article regardless of the flawed execution. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real deletion rationale given. Nominator concedes that the only problem is the execution and doesn't know how to fix it. True, article needs improvement (and references!) but as per nominator: "concept is not necessarily flawed." -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree this is indiscriminate and better covered and discussed at History of the tallest buildings in the world. Dzlife (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The noms principal objection is he does not know how to code the graphic, about the most irrelevant of arguments. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus. Not news has a fuzzy boundary, ad the community has to decide when it applies; they have clearly decided for this one. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Southern California power outage

[edit]

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

Note: The article was renamed to "2011 Southwestern United States blackout" on September 10. —Bagumba (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NOTNEWS Wikinews can cover this topic of present news coverage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehmeet singh (talk • contribs)

Keep. Major event, significant coverage, and we will be seeing long term fallout ("unprecedented power outage" - [41]). As per Category:Electric power blackouts articles of much smaller blackouts have been deemed notable. jorgenev 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already in its own section at San Diego Gas & Electric, which is the appropriate place. Although many people were impacted by the power outage, it appears to fall under WP:NOTNEWS for a standalone article. 72Dino (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It deserves its own article because there is so much to be written about it that would not appropriately fit in the article for the company; things such as the huge sewage spill it caused ([42]), the traffic foul-ups ([43]), school cancellations ([44][45]), the worries about people trapped in theme park rides ([46]) and the diplomacy issues about mistakes in the U.S. grid bringing down the grid in mexico are important, but would be extraneous information for the San Diego Gas & Electric article. jorgenev 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Small compared to the biggest outages, but probably will remain wp:notable because of the nature of it. Another outage caused by the dumbness of the supposed "smartness" built into these. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event with significant coverage. Johnfos (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I was there when the blackout happened, I don't think this should be on Wikipedia. I already made an article about this on Wikinews: Southwestern US and Mexico affected by Blackout. Consider moving this to the page on Wikinews, it's sources may make the news more reliable.--JC Rules! (talk) 07:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG per significant coverage in multiple major reliable sources: NY Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, Bloomberg, & San Diego Union Tribune. There are many other highly regarded reliable sources, if one need more evidence that the event passes WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Strong Keep Based on sources in post above. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 17:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lasting WP:IMPACT of being the largest blackout in California history. —Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the outage is the subject of a federal investigation. -- Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It was the largest power outage in California history. According to the Los Angeles Times, over 4 million people were impacted for over 10 hours. VERY notable. AlaskaMike (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable unprecedented power outage that affected two countries. 7 million people were affected. It recieved multiple secondary source coverage from major national news organizations.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 Southwestern United States blackout. The current title is inappropriate since parts of Arizona and Mexico were also involved. The latter article needs to be greatly expanded and updated, and I would encourage the people who have been working on this article to work on that one instead. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same; the page was moved. jorgenev 00:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was moved on September 10.—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's clearly a Keeper. This received international attention and had wide-ranging consequences. The article needs some updating -- which I just did. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in case someone is planning to say that blackouts are not notable, please see Northeast Blackout of 2003, Northeast Blackout of 1965, 2006 Auckland Blackout, 2003 Italy blackout, etc. In fact just see Category: Electric power blackouts. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article clearly passes the WP:GNG guideline. It receive coverage from major newspapers and international sources. Per WP:IMPACT it should also be kept. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 03:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. by consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

[edit]

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

This is an opinion piece (WP:SOAP). The topic of the protection of cultural property in war is notable, but the place to do so would be in the article cultural property itself. Sandstein 15:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The content is a bit essayish and hence has neutrality problems. In principle, the subject may well be notable enough for a standalone article, but I'd want to see almost completely new content and probably a different title too, so the best option here is to delete without prejudice to future creation with improvements... bobrayner (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, with no prejudice against later re-creation. This might well be an encyclopedic topic, but the current article is not. MKFI (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MKFI, but if ever recreated should have a new, more encylopedic title. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Obvious. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xomgx

[edit]

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

This article is about a professional wrestler that has no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Searches conducted under both his ring name of Xomgx and his real name, "Kyle Threat". -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comes nowhere near WP:BIO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete for all the reasons given below -- The Anome (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal distribution

[edit]

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

This is OR. References don't support topic itself. Article creator is being investigated for disruptive editing. AstroCog (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Largely made up of non-attributed text copied from other wikipedia articles (WP:CWW). Should probably wait until copyright status of the creator's contributions becomes clearer before submitting further AfDs of this user's articles Jebus989 ^✰ 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CFORK of Time, Geologic time scale, etc. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.31 (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no topic here. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one more of this editor's WP:SYNTH farms.--Cerejota (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR-by-Google. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came across this one while attempting to make sense of another of the editor's articles. Maybe I'm missing the point, but this article appears to have no point whatsoever... at least nothing that its references substantiate. If someone more knowledgeable in the subject matter can advise otherwise, it would be great, but I don't see how the references in any way lead to the material in this article. Trusilver 16:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Talk pages do not belong at AfD, and the parent page is already at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal distribution. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Temporal distribution

[edit]

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

This is OR. References don't support the topic itself. Article creator is being investigated for disruptive editing. AstroCog (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Chandwani

[edit]

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

Unremarkable person, Self-promotion and not satisfying the notability guidelines Sehmeet singh Talk 10:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete — either self promo or an attack page (sad when the difference isn't discernable). either way it's gotta go. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junk page showing no evidence of notability. All 'references' are unedited blogs etc. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LibreOffice Calc

[edit]

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

A separate article for each component of LibO is not necessary. The article lists features in a self-promo manner, and includes a changelog and a comparison section with MS Excel. Lots of original research and ^{[citation needed]} tags. —Fitoschido ^[shout_track] \\ 9 September, 2011 [10:37]

all wikipedia articles start bad and improve later, and all your comments about the quality of this article being low apply to the openoffice.org calc article and even the ms excel article as well.

lo.calc is an almost identical fork of oo.calc and so of course they will have very similar articles.

also eventualy the lo.calc will grow quite large in size and surely you woudlnt wanna put all that info into the main LOffice article since that would make that article huge.

the liboffice article should be a summary and the component articles should be more in depth.

also please state specific examples where the current lo.calc article is deficient wen compared the oo.calc or ms excel article, general criticism is not constructive.

please dont let the wikipedia turn into a deletionfest like the sparse german wikipedia, as long as the refs are clearly and truthfully sourced we should be more accepting to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when you look at articles like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Engraver which are of closed source software that shamelessly self promotes then you can claim people have a financial interest in promoting such software. but libreoffice is a charity and and wikipedia is a very expansive encylopedia , so surely it should include an article on the most widely used opensource spreadsheet program. i cant beleive someone would actually think that this very popular foss app would be non-notable.

rather than deleting articles on a foss programs, why not peruse some of the most egregious and shameless marketing stunts being pulled on other articles about closed source software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all the original research in that article was inherited from the oo.calc article, so remove it on both articles, there is no need to delete the libreoffice calc or the openoffice calc articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please just take a look at the libreoffice writer article, it was terrible at first but look at it, now, a whole bunch of new editors have come in and are polishing it, this article just needs a bit of time, its only a few days old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I just reviewed the LibreOffice Writer article and despite all the work done on it it still doesn't make WP:GNG. I have just tagged it for notability for now, pending the outcome of this discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a no-brainer history merge back to OpenOffice.org Calc, which is where 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 forked it from the other day. The two products are not yet differentiated enough to warrant separate articles. For now, differences between LO Calc and OOo Calc can easily be noted on the main LibreOffice article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there should definitely be no merge. LibreOffice and OpenOffice are different pieces of software at this point, use different trademarks, and are run by different entities. What's more, LibreOffice is the standard on major platforms such as Ubuntu Linux, while OpenOffice is not. Steven Walling • talk 02:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Different trademarks and different entitites" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is sources which have non-trivial coverage of the fork independent to either the otiginal project or the main LibreOffice subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - after having done a large number of edits on this article trying to fix up the mess created by copying an existing article and changing the names, I can only conclude that the required reliable third party refs to show notability do not exist and it therefore fails WP:GNG. LibreOffice itself is notable, but Calc only gets the odd passing mention in third party sources. This is not uncommon with components, as a particular model of car may be notable, but the tires or bolts used in it (constituent components) are not. If you check the LibreOffice talk page you will see that the article creator was warned by me before he started the article that he should make sure he had enough independent third part refs for notability, but this advice was ignored. Note for User:123465421jhytwretpo98721654, most of your arguments above constitute WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which basically says that we don't keep crappy articles just because Wikipedia has other crappy articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Are you kidding me? There are plenty of sources and Calc meets the general notability guideline with flying colors. LibreOffice Calc and the other individual applications within the LibreOffice set are deployed as the standard office apps on literally tens of millions of computers running Ubuntu Linux and similar distros. Steven Walling • talk 02:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all just rhetoric. How many reliable secondary sources have non-trivial coverage of the Calc portion of LibreOffice independently to coverage of LibreOffice itself or OpenOffice.org Calc? It is precisely because of the failure to meet the GNG that this is up here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be ridiculous. The fact that a piece of software is immensely popular is relevant to whether it meets the general notability guideline, and there are sources in the article to back that up. If what's present in the article is too trivial for you, there are a couple dozen results to pick from in books and news, the latter even without searching the archives. Take your pick. Steven Walling • talk 19:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are sufficient refs that deal with Calc, as opposed to LibreOffice in general, then please do add them to the article and we can check them over and then wrap this up quickly. - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep LibreOffice, like OpenOffice before it is a collection of components. base componenents are calc, writer, impress, base, math and draw. Here are few references: http://www.opensource-usability-labs.com/tine20/2011/09/07/libreoffice-user-research-%E2%80%93-results-vol-3/ this one shows that calc is the 2nd most used module of the suite, after writer http://kohei.us/2011/02/14/fosdem-2011-slide-latest-updates/ www. <lulu> .com/product/paperback/libreoffice-3-calc-guide/16075944 (lulu is apparently banned... so let's try amazon... much more reliable right ? ) http://www.amazon.com/LibreOffice-Functions-Formulas-Essential-ebook/dp/B0051J8FD4 http://www.excitingip.com/1415/libre-office-calc-spreadsheet/ http://ubuntumanual.org/topics/libreoffice-calc . As far as 'being the same as OpenOffice': First OpenOffice.org is a dead project; the source code has been abandoned by Oracle and dumped into a poddling at the Apache Foundation... where it may or may not come out of it, one day, as Apache Open Office.... Second, now for numbers: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/LibreOffice-and-OpenOffice-org-drift-apart-1338511.html. Shmget (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—A significant component of a solidly notable software offering from the open source community. The only question is whether it should be merged or stand alone; I prefer the latter. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Libre office is sufficiently famous that the individual major components of it are notable, and are often reviewed separately. They are in fact derivative of Open Office,--but I would not call OpenOffice dead, exactly, since it isstill so widely used, or delete the articles on it either. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unix daemons

[edit]

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

Scope is far too wide. A category is just about workable, but we could never make a comprehensive article here practical. Even alternatives such as a move to list of daemons included with System V Unix would be unworkable due to the immense variation in installations, and any finite list would be far better included in a section of a relevant article on a given OS release. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—I'm not sure that the scope will ever come close to matching List of minor planets, and WP:NOTPAPER may apply here as well. As long as the notability of each listed daemon is established, I don't think there is a problem. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that minor planets are, by definition, enumerated by a central body, and therefore there are a finite number of them (at least in terms of how we can present them). "daemon" is just an arbitrary classification for how a given piece of software runs, and there is no central body to enumerate these (unlike, say, List of Unix utilities, where the list if limited to those defined by IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 in the Single UNIX Specification. And even then, it is not a given that less than 300,000 pieces of software running on Unix (an operating system over forty years old) have been written to run as daemons so far. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, see List of cities or List of stars then, along with their multitude of sub-lists. Like I said, the list needs to be limited to daemons that satisfy the notability requirements. Even if it extends to 300,000, it's still a finite list. RJH (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that it "fails WP:NOT" (I said nothing of the sort) but that it can never approach complete coverage of the purported subject matter. See WP:SALAT and search for "scope". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Unix daemons, delete list of daemons included with System V Unix.

I know what a Unix daemon is. I don't need to know what's installed on a particular system, for this does obviously vary. For a list of daemons available, I'm happy with it as it is, and it's obvious and non-problematic that individual systems may have them installed or not. To claim that a particular set of daemons was the set installed for any particular distro, now that would be were things become non-encyc. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this address the scope problem, namely that this is an open-ended list with essentially innumerable potential content? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "open ended" for List of Unix daemons as a problem here, any more than it prevents us having an article on cardinal numbers. Members of this list must be Unix daemons, but there is no implication the article covers all of the possibles. The difference between this and System V is because that one is tying the list to a more specific, and thus presumably bounded, list - which is the constrained, but not clearly defined, situation that we can't actually achieve. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABAS Software

[edit]

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

Specialised piece of software written up by someone with an admitted (by e-mail) COI. Is there sufficient evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Yet another back office software business advertising on Wikipedia: an Enterprise resource planning & e-business application designed for manufacturers in the Assemble-to-Order, Make-to-Order and Engineer-to-Order environment. Please review the rules for capitalization in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from User talk:Sawa123#Deletion of abas Software)

"Dear RHworth, your talking about an email of an CIO (whatever that is?!?). The email was not written by myself, I asked for help because I don't understand everything that is complained about." "

"Can you really assure me that you have no COI?"

"Yes I can assure that."

"No COI??"

"I used to work for a competitor... I guess that is my interest."

Yappy2bhere (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-primary sources used in the article, Google News returs only press releases and trivial mentions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is various non-primary sources: "abas Business Software Overview". from Technology Evaluation Center [47], "ABAS Software ERP Review" from ERP Software Comparison. [48], "Abas ERP" from ERP.com. and "Technical Specifications" from Liferay Inc. [49]. Or why would those be primary sources? And if you check different websites for erp selection or erp evalutation you can find lots of information regarding the software. Only searching in Google will only show sites from the company, the same will happen if your looking for other companies or products. Sawa123 (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)sawa123[reply]
Keep Major product. I would not be in favor of having articles for individual components. I don't see that using inappropriate capitals is a cause for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed due to absence of article (speedy deleted as hoax). Peridon (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wigmore

[edit]

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

Appears to be written by a person very close to article subject. Google search did not return any results matching what is stated in article; search on Cleo's website did not return any results on subject, meaning that most if not all of the article is untrue or unsourced. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 08:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of this hoaxtastic piece about a 19 year old world record hurdler and discoverer of distant planets. Should have been stopped at the gate, who signed off on this thing? Carrite (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did like this bit: "A study conducted in 2009 showed that 9 in 10 females would rate him a 10/10 for cuteness. Jacob's witty charm and dazzeling good looks are supplimented by a vast inteligence and a well tuned body." Carrite (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete clear hoax. None of the references are real and the claims are ridiculous. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Animal Paradise. Courcelles 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Paradise Wild

[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see any sources to pass WP:GNG. (Here's a press release.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Animal Paradise Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete There is nothing really to merge. Also, here is the only reliable source in existence covering the subject: [50]. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Giving this a fresh 7 days as the AFD was never closed when it should have been.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 22:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Animal Paradise. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Quarry Bay. Courcelles 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Fung Sun Chuen

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable housing development, unreferenced and marked for notability since June 2009. Survived previous AfD. interwiki article also appears to lack references (I don't speak the language). All I'm seeing on google is apparent valuations and transport links, which are important if you're considering living there, but not indepth coverage to support notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability as an internet search in Chinese turned up mostly classified listings, transaction reports, and weirdly, though an unrelaible source, a listing of which flats had deaths occurred in them. Presumably so that buyers are aware and can ask for a discount if so inclined.--Michaela den (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Quarry Bay. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Quarry Bay. Not notable enough to be standalone. Still, the statement "Because of its relatively large size of development it serves as the benchmark for premises developed in the late 1970s in the property market" is important in an economy where real estate plays a major role and frequently takes the front seat in political debates. The numerous mentions of the estate in "classified listings, transaction reports" found by Michaela den in fact support this statement. A pure deletion without porting of part of the content to another article is, I believe, not appropriate. olivier (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Void (browser game)

[edit]

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

I could not find any evidence that this game has been covered by anyone but the authors. Delete per WP:N Odie5533 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Odie5533 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not released, not covered by anyone notable. ∫e^b²+1_(talk) 08:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iceberg (color)

[edit]

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

Non-notable shade of blue (not white). RGB values apparently taken from a single moodily-lit photo of an iceberg. bobrayner (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few similar articles are at AfD:
bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another non-notable name for a shade of colour. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to search for any reliable source coverage for this commercial term, and have not had any luck. This fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another batch of articles is now at AfD:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named. Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). As for the X11 colors, the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. The articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'The X11 names are in all cases suitable as being from the most widely used color directory, at least the most widely used free one. I would be in favor of listing all the Pantone colors also, if we can find a way free of their intellectual property restrictions.This would not violate nOT DIRECTORY, for we are not compiling of directory of every possible color name, or any color name every used anywhere, but only the name used in standard sources, and are therefore discriminating. The guiding principle is NOT PAPER. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (color)

[edit]

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

Non-notable shade of blue-grey. bobrayner (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few similar articles are at AfD:
bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable name for a shade of colour. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have attempted to search for any reliable source coverage for this commercial term, and have not had any luck. This fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another batch of articles is now at AfD:
Thanks for your time; bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Color names are chosen arbitrarily and different at each paint manufacturer. There is no standard on what each color should be named. Moreover, some of these color articles have no content other than a weak dicdef (WP:NOTDIC). As for the X11 colors, the listing at X11 color names is more than enough and really all you can write about it. The articles on the primary colors could have a list of common names of some shades of that color. What's next, an article for each Pantone code? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Hall Driving School

[edit]

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

I fail to see how a single driving school, one of (tens of) thousands, can be notable. This one has a single claim to fame, but that is not enough to establish notability. Biker Biker (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the significance of this article. Only two sentences of the three talk about the school itself, while the middle sentence is about the founder. The fact that the article's an orphan speaks true of the subject's notability. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Active Directory. Courcelles 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise Open

[edit]

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

This is all that I can find for significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Active Directory. The source that the nominator found is enough to support the merger. Nevertheless, such merger would require a rewrite instead of a simple copy and paste. Fleet Command (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Product name is now changed to "PowerBroker Identity Services Open Edition". Fleet Command (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I can hardly see the article expand more. I suggest merging the article to Active Directory. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found the article, short as it is, useful. Rsduhamel (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Gulf Affairs

[edit]

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

I can't find sources which discuss this institute in any great depth, which would give it notability for an encyclopaedia. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows extensive discussion of this Saudi dissident group in English. There is a strong presumption that reliable sources exist in Arabic. This stub should be improved and expanded instead of being deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Creation of a banned user (G5). --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable there are plenty of sources that show notability 27 hits in Google book and 17 in scholar.--Shrike (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The creator has been indefed but not technically "banned" and a G5 was declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. He was a sock of a indef-blocked user. I stand corrected. The Speedy deletion request was not declined though, it was simply reverted by another user. If a SD reviewer have had the chance to see the notice, he/she would have delete it, as it clearly qualifies for G5. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delete - Creation of a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – AfD is about the notability of topics for inclusion in Wikipedia, and not about users who created or contributed to articles. User status is not correlated with topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Just click on Google News and you will see that the subject is more than relevant, and I suspect the article could be vastly expanded. [51] The status of the article's creator is irrelevant And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read through some of that. The New York Times quotes their leader on behalf of the organization. The Washington Post published an entire article by one of their members. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/2/militias-ensuring-libyas-democratic-future/ "Matthew Mainen is a policy analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs." Honestly now. There is ample coverage out there providing they are a notable organization. Dream Focus 01:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Numerous reliable sources for the topic pass General notability guidelines for the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 Canadian Forces Supply Depot (7 CFSD)

[edit]

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

An article about a Canadian military organisation. It lists one source which is the Canadian National Archives and leads me to suspect that this article is based on original research. Notability of the subject has not been established. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much encyclopedic content, probably could meet wp:notability. Material looks plausible. Lacking sources. North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not enough to speculate that a subject might be notable, contain alleged "encyclopedic content" or that the material in an article looks superficially plausible. In order to sustain a Wikipedia article, WP:V and WP:GNG require that the article have multiple, independent, reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," and that the detail be supported by inline citations. This is not the case here. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 03:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple, independant and reliable sources are available and will be added by end September 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrigan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Hendrigan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the creating editor says they can provide references, shouldn't they be given a chance to do so. If they are unable to do so before the end of the AfD, may I suggest userfying it to a subpage of the creator's userpage? There, they can work on it, and reintroduce it to the encyclopedia proper when sources have been added. -- saberwyn 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the editor can provide references, surely several days is enough to do so. If he cannot, of course there's no problem with userfying the article. Indeed, nothing prevents him from doing so now. (That being said, the article creator hasn't made a contribution either to this article or to Wikipedia in nearly a month as of 9/1, aside from his comment in this AfD.) ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 05:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My research has found many independent verifiable sources. This article just need to be wikified. Badly written and constructed articles do not need to be deleted. Just needs to be corrected.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Splendid. Would you mind supplying those sources, please? Ravenswing 17:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a week later. I see no sources. I also see no reason why there would be any sources for notability , for this sort of supply organization. I also don't see the point of userification--if the unit has ever done something sufficiently non-routine that non-trivial sources actually exist, the article can be easily enough restored. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kmetija

[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability of topic. Lacks sources FiachraByrne (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There would seem to be plenty of reliable sources here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I went through the Google search results posted above and found two items in English, which I've added to the article. I don't speak Slovene and was unable to evaluate the remaining hits. The article now contains two presumably reliable sources which are independent of the subject — but since both sources are from the Slovenian Press Agency (STA), they aren't independent of each other, so at least one more source (from somewhere else) needs to be found in order to satisfy the letter of the notability requirement of multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject and of one another. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Simon

[edit]

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

Holocaust survivor who is a motivational speaker for local schools. Majority of coverage are trivial local mentions of his appearances at various schools. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Darkwind (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO. Coverage is not trivial but acceptable third-party refs in reliable sources, and subject demonstrates strong regional notability. I wikified the article to provide inline citations. Yoninah (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is local coverage of a speaker to middle schoolers not WP:ROUTINE? Just another WP:Run-of-the-mill motivational speaker. On a side note, GS returns nothing on his work at UCSB, so fails WP:ACADEMIC. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 16:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new ref that says he earned his teaching degree at UCSB and taught languages at Ventura College. Yoninah (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete - Vanadus is right, this just doesn't make the cut. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject does not meet the notability guidlines. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reports in high school newspapers and other local and/or trivial coverage won't cut it. There's one LA Times piece which is significant, but it's from the local section and is clearly intended to be local news, and in any case it still fails WP:BIO, which requires multiple. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with local news? Surely you don't mean that someone has to be written up in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN in order to qualify for a Wikipedia biography? Many people are well-known in their region but not nationally. And why do you write off the Ventura County Star, which is a member of the Scripps group? Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Vanadus and Roscelese. CapMan07008 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in the Los Angeles Times establishes notability, regardless of what section of the newspaper it's in. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist comment: Aditional content has been added since the last opinion, which might require reexamination. Sandstein 06:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply - No, all you've done is squeeze more juice out of the same lemons, plus adding links to a local school newspaper and an anthology of college student writing compiled by the local college. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Internet research reveals he has has received substantial coverage in secondary sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability and the reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article, in addition to other sources available, more then establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the article has enough WP:RS in any case. IZAK (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. I don't see a policy difference vis-à-vis what newspaper section the coverage is in. CityO fSilver 00:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reason why local sections don't necessarily give sufficient sourcing for notability, is that they cover ever event in the community, regardless of importance. None of the ones here show anything more than that. Incidentally, I don't exactly see how anyone could in 1941 search for Nazi criminals in Germany as part of the US Army. By the time the Allies reached Germany he was, according to the article, a pilot in the Air Force. However, a little confusion is understandable, because the source for this part of the article is a student essay, [52]. It's presumably based on his own account in the local talk he gave, not on any actual documentation. Based on the statement on the talk p. from the original editor, the entire article amounts to a personal account by the subject. I consequently regard the newspaper articles essentially as based on his own publicity for himself. Based on the attribution for the image, that ed. cvlaims to own the copyright on the image, which would make the article either an autobiography or written by a close relative. . DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible merges have been discussed, and can continue to be done so through standard editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogle DVD Player

[edit]

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

Non-notable software written as a student project. Website down. No content in google. No releases in 7 years. Tagged for notability since Feb 2009. No references. PROD contested. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ogle was definitely a big deal for Linux/*Nix users back in the day for playing DVDs on home computers. It has now pretty much faded away. Anyway I found these reviews here and here from Linux Journal which is definitely a reliable source and this one from Tech Radar. All three of these sources provide enough detail, I think, to establish the basic facts about the operation of the software, its usefulness back in the day, and notability. None of these sources mention who created the software or give much of a history, which would be nice to have, but this information might exist somewhere on Google (though in dealing with open source software those kinds of details are often hard to find). SQGibbon (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) good work finding those references, they're better than I found. (b) all three are reviews of the handful of DVD players available at the time, and while each includes a couple of paragraphs on Ogle, it could be argued that it's included for completeness, making them less than ideal notability references. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they are less than ideal and there appears no chance that the article will ever be expanded again (after these refs make it in). If it was merely a table of players with columns for features then I would say that wasn't good enough. If it were separate articles just for that player that ran four, five, or more paragraphs then I would say it's clearly notable. This is somewhere between all that but I think that given there are three articles (from reliable sources—though I am unfamiliar with Techradar.com) and the reviews are fairly substantive then the subject does qualify as notable. I understand it's not a perfectly clear-cut case but I think at the least it leans towards keeping. SQGibbon (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Abandonware. This is a very marginal software product: only in existence for a few years, and with barely any sources. Is there a "List of .." article that it could be merged into? Perhaps an article on freeware DVD players? or a list of Linux apps? Maybe Comparison of video player software. --Noleander (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently work underway to purge software lists of non-notable software, so this may not be a good solution. See for example the recent restructure at List of free software web applications (to save it from AfD) and the proposed work on List of free software Android applications. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per SQGibbon. Age does not count against notability, and I think the linux today articles are enough. I would not oppose merging this into an article on Linux DVD software, assuming such exists or someone wants to create same. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Missing Pieces (film). v/r - T P 02:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Pieces (film)

[edit]

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

Unreleased film that does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for motion picture articles. Wefihe (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: film looks notable and is IMDb sourced. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate as potentially unnoticed film, yet. Only two sources: IMDb, which is not considered as reliable, potentially non-prominent Donnybrook Writing Academy and the main source — official site. I concur with User:MichaelQSchmidt's comments below. Alex^{discussion ★} 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a short while. Before anyone tells User:Aleksa Lukic that "looks notable" is not a valid keep reason, or reminds that Wikipedia does not consider IMDB a reliable source for notability... let's take a look at what's otherwise so far available on this film: for example, Independent Film Critic has reviewed a screener copy. So has Get the Big Picture Nutshell Reviews After the Rest Cine Talk Criticize This! ExclaimFlickering Myth Flick Feast Lost in Reviews Magic City Post Son: sation Spl!ng Screen Spotlight Sonic Cinema and more.[53] What? No review from The New York Times? Nope. Not yet. My thought here, is that while this film has not yet caught the eye of the sources we prefer, it IS getting a lot of pre-release attention. Incubating this until it is released and does have the coverage we prefer is a decent option that takes it out of article space and places it where it may receive the benefit of colaborative editing until ready to come back. IMHO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neofeudalism

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is pseudo-dictionary definition of a neologism dressed up as an article. A search of Google Books reveals no works discussing the use of the term in depth. Most mentions of it are as if 'coining a phrase' by the authors and there is no underlying accepted definition or theory beyond "something happening now that shares some of the characteristics of feudalism". This won't appear in "A to Z of politics"-type books because it doesn't have an accepted meaning beyond this. Pontificalibus (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AFDs and new sources. Lots of political terms are not precisely defined, or have disputed meanings (cf. fascism). Wikipedia should cover them anyway, to serve as a guide to how notable sources (Chris Hedges in this case) have used the term. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Hedges: Kim Stanley Robinson, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Bernard L. Weinstein sources now added. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of in-depth analysis, available from hundreds of scholarly sources, as a Google Scholar search reveals. Tim Duvall's article "The New Feudalism: Globalization, the Market, and the Great Chain of Consumption" in New Political Science seems a promising place to start. I'll try incorporating his descriptions into this article later today.

Also, the literal translation new feudalism should redirect to this article, or this article should be moved there (the terms are used interchangeably), but I can't do either as an IP user. Could someone please make the redirect? 78.31.70.182 (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source you give is one single mention of the word with no attempt to define it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary. Subjects need to have received significant coverage. Fascism is written about and analysed in-depth in multiple sources, it is also clearly defined. However, this word is more akin to words like "pseudocommunism", "neodemocracy" and "quasiliberal", which are used to make various points but don't have the supporting in depth analysis and clear definition of words like neoconservatism.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"That source you give" apparently refers to Hedges, ignoring Robinson, Galbraith and Weinstein. While you're correct that Hedges does not define the word, his declining to provide his definition is quite irrelevant if Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What Hedges does offer Wikipedia is a data point on how the term is used. It is not sufficient all by itself, but neither is your focus on one source, to the exclusion of others, sufficient to make your case for deletion. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other sources, two don't even mention the word, and the other uses it only to link to this very article for a definition.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"two don't even mention the word": you are not seriously going to suggest that if we would have an article on neofeudalism we could not include use of material on new feudalism in it? even when this article already noted the translation before you came along to AFD? Do you think that neofeudalism has a substantively different meaning from new feudalism? This does not make it easy to assume good faith in your deletion nomination.

"and the other uses it only to link to this very article for a definition": no, the other uses it to document the use of the term w/r/t Galbraith. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Allow time for more references to be added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? That's not a valid keep rationale, and there are no sources discussing the subject in depth.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Neofeudalism" is a pejorative term increasingly used in ordinary discourse, and occasionally in scholarship, but not with any consistent meaning (it is used for everything ranging from South African Apartheid-era rural policies to modern US wealth disparities), so there doesn't seem to be an actual topic for this article. The current poor state of the article (almost entirely unreferenced OR) reflects this. - 202.124.72.192 (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: added source from Clifford Shearing (who, contrary to assertions here, does not use the word in a pejorative sense, as if that mattered anyway), regarded as "the quintessential scholar of the new regulatory state" by John Braithwaite. Martha K. Huggins and maybe others authors' further examination of Shearing's usage coming soon. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shearing adds yet another use, and he explicitly ("what we might term") acknowledges that his use is a neologism. His use also strikes me as pejorative, or at least negative. His definition ("arenas of governance [with] contracts that set out such things as the proper expectations (rights) and responsibilities (duties) of community members") is sufficiently general to apply even to Wikipedia: it does not match the current article lead. The only hope for the article I see is a lead of the form: "Neofeudalism is a negative term used by a number of writers to mean several different things. Uses of the term have in common an implicit criticism of some aspect of society, by comparing it to the feudalism of the Middle Ages." – but I think that even such an article should be deleted. -- 202.124.74.254 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia-policy-based argument to support your deletion !vote. The terms are not neologisms; neofeudalism has been in use since the 1950s at the latest; new feudalism dates to 1911 at the latest. I have secondary sources forthcoming (such as the already-mentioned Huggins) which comment on Shearing's meaning, and this would satisfy WP:NEO even if the terms were neologisms and first dated to 2011.

"Explicitly" would mean actually saying "I'm coining a neologism here." You meant "he implicitly acknowledges", and you are wrong about any implication. Such rhetorical forms as might term or might call can indicate the application of an understood term to a disputed target.

That there are traits which have led to calling South African apartheid-era rural policies and modern US wealth disparities (not so diverse a range there) by a common term is rather an argument for noting what traits have led to such labelling. Shearing's use helps bring the diversity and commonalities of usage into clearer view. It does not match the article lede because I just added it, and the article lede still waits to be changed. I suggest you either change it now, or wait for me to finish sourcing a fuller article, rather than complaining about minor inconsistencies of a work in progress.

You openly distort the text by taking "One of the features of this new feudalism is that the contracts ..." as a definition when it is not presented as such. But your distortion is an irrelevancy anyway; it should not be of interest to the Wikipedia editor whether a term is general or specific, only whether the sourcing is verifiable.

Likewise, it does not matter what you think is pejorative or negative. This is simply nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, though it does hint at what is the real cause of your nitpicking here. I suggest you read the original if you want to see what positive utility he draws from risk-based private/public policing as it may be applied to restorative justice (the larger theme of his article). Then you can get on with denouncing the pejorative article on foolishness. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the word has been used for a while. It's also a fact that, as the nom says, "most mentions of it are as if 'coining a phrase' by the authors and there is no underlying accepted definition or theory beyond 'something happening now that shares some of the characteristics of feudalism.'" In particular, it's been used to refer to wealth disparities, to rural employment contracts, to patterns of governance (by Shearing), and other things. There is no consistent topic there to write an article about. The word is simply a way of saying "some aspect of what I am studying resembles the Middle ages in a negative way." -- 202.124.72.73 (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a policy-based argument. Nevertheless, note that the article has been about "policies of governance and economy" for years now, and everything you mention fits under that topic. Feudalism was vastly nuanced and complicated. It is not surprising to find that concepts of neofeudalism influence different areas of research differently. 78.31.70.182 (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article's horrible and the term is misused. To the extent that the term "Neofeudalism" actually exists it is often made in reference to the historical re-emergence of serfdom in Eastern Europe (east of the Elbe +). But that's not what this is about. This is straight up use of Wikipedia for the purpose of some idiosyncratic political agenda.Volunteer Marek(talk) 06:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Add: (And holy crap, the article doesn't even manage to get the term "feudalism" right (even in the Marxist usage of the term). The way the term is used in the article is basically some high school-kid version of "a stand in for things which are bad", sort of like if you used the term "fascist" to refer to your parents because they won't let you stay out past midnight or something. Immature embarrassment to the encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again I note !votes not based in any deletion policy. If the article was bad, then improve it. If the term was "misused", then use it better. If Marek is aware of some meaning in Eastern Europe, then Marek should have added it.

The relevant question is whether an article can be based on secondary sources, which discuss primary sources' use of the term. That is all. So that the ignorance of policy does not remain fashionable here, I have now stubbed the article to show how a basic policy-compliant article can begin. Taking the criminology usage of the term as a narrow scope, this stub already satisfies the core content policies of WP:NPOV, V and OR, and so should be kept as is. But I will continue to expand it. DeliciousBits (talk) (formerly 78.31.70.182) 22:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay about a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Where is the "original essay" you speak of? I insist that you should actually look at the article and substantiate that specious claim with a quote. And it is not a neologism, but even if it was, it would pass WP:NEO: "cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept". DeliciousBits (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP does not allow cut-and-pasting of (quoted) paragraphs to form nearly the entirety of an article. I share Marek and Carrite's concerns on other issues. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 02:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the quotes are valid in this article (I think we should put that as a separate question to the resident copyright experts) but they can be trimmed if you like. They can be removed entirely. They exist currently to show the theoretical basis of the concept. Even if they were removed entirely, the article would be a stub sufficient for keeping.

Here is the same stub, this time without any quoted paragraphs. It clearly shows the meaning of the term in the criminology use (best explained by the Bruce Baker sentence, in my opinion), and it shows that the term is in usage such that we can at least write a verifiable stub on the criminology sense. Would you agree with that much? DeliciousBits (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been asked for a clarification of my position on this topic. Here goes. "Neofeudalism" is not a valid analytical concept. Much like left wing fascism it is a contradiction of terms and its use is strictly as a pejorative. Feudalism was a social and economic system that predated capitalism; dredging up the archaic word, hooking a "new" on the front, and using it as a slag against the right wing is an exercise in polemics. "Oh, they want a king and a few lords and a mass of serfs, just like the middle ages — neener neener!" Writing it up like it is a valid analytical concept and tagging on a few footnotes doesn't make a circle square. Now, don't get me wrong, this is exactly the same politicized bullshit behind left-wing fascism — which is apt to be kept on the basis of mass WP:ILIKEIT arguments and a shallow close. Same deal though — it is a pejorative used in the contemporary political environment by one team against the other as an attempt to link the opponents with a historical evil. There is no such thing either as left-wing fascism or neofeudalism outside of the POV-laden polemics of talking heads. I voted for delete there. And I'm voting for delete here. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I called that right. That makes three notability challenges and three bad closes on left-wing fascism. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LINK. Carrite (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this is about some wikipolitics I don't understand. Could this article please be evaluated on its own merits? Have you tried clearing your browser cache? The rewritten article now has nothing to do with left or right, and it is certainly not being used as "a slag against the right wing". The article is about Shearing's concept in criminology. DeliciousBits (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposted from Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron: I think Neofeudalism can be kept using the secondary sources that rely on Shearing's (primary source) use of the term. (There are other uses outside criminology, but AFD participants said the article was too broad). These secondary sources, as currently used in the article, include Baker, Huggins, and Zedner. There are several more, which I will continue supplying as time permits. Where I think Article Rescue Squadron participants may be able to help: concepts from the larger blockquotes can be summarized to clarify the sources' meanings. I believe all these larger blockquotes are ultimately permissible to present the sources' reasoning in their own words, but this question can be delayed for the resident copyright experts until after AFD, so I have removed the quotes for now. At this time, help summarizing the quotes would be appreciated. DeliciousBits (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Neofeudalism controversy in United States politics should not be listed up top, since that was a fork of the main article, and has nothing to do with this nomination at all. Looking through the history of this article, it seems to have gone through a lot of changes, from one thing to another. Dream Focus 10:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue is not whether neofeudalism is a "valid analytical concept"; that's not for us to decide, per WP:NPOV. Rather, the issue is whether the term is in widespread enough use to be notable, and whether its use can be documented with reliable sources. If the term is used frequently in the published academic literature, then it counts as notable; Carrite's arguments are certainly valid criticisms of the concept, and it may very well be a highly-contested and controversial theoretical model, but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Here, there are citations to the work of multiple academic criminologists (including Lucia Zedner) in which the term is used and discussed. The lead section could probably be reworded for NPOV, to make clear that it's a term used in the work of specific scholars rather than a universally-accepted concept; and if there are scholars critiquing the concept, mentions of their work belong in the article too. But as far as I can see, there are enough sources here to demonstrate that the term is in widespread use in the academic criminological literature, so I'd say it probably passes the threshold for inclusion. Walton^One 11:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That the term pops up often enough doesn't mean it's a valid topic for an article. That the term is in widespread use, maybe, does not yet mean that it points to a specific concept, which is what is necessary, lest we get a vague definition followed by a dozen examples that have nothing to do with each other. And a vague definition, that's what we have. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see that the article is now a stub, containing several definitions, all different, and none which are in fact "reminiscent of those [policies] present in many feudal societies." I must say, I see no indication that there is a coherent topic here. I believe Walton is wrong: it is not enough for the "term [to be] used frequently in the published academic literature" -- it must be used to mean the same thing, otherwise it's not actually a concept at all. -- 202.124.72.203 (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. There are plenty of obviously-notable concepts the definitions of which are highly debated. There's a huge amount of debate over what "fascism" does and doesn't mean, for instance. Similarly, there's a huge amount of debate over what "slavery" means (see wage slavery as opposed to chattel slavery, and the disputes as to whether the former is an abuse of the term). The same is true of "socialism", "conservatism" and "liberalism", for that matter; there's no universal consensus about what these terms mean, and different writers certainly don't use them in consistent contexts and with consistent meanings. That does not mean the concepts themselves are non-notable: indeed, the very volume of debate they've generated is evidence of their notability.
- Obviously you're right that it wouldn't be a notable concept if the different authors cited simply happened to have used the terms "neo-" and "feudalism" together by pure chance, in the course of talking about completely different concepts in completely different fields of study. But it doesn't seem like that's the case here; although there is substantial scholarly disagreement over what "neo-feudalism" is, and plenty of debate as to whether it's a useful or applicable term at all, this doesn't mean that there is no common conceptual thread in the literature. Walton^One 19:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can cover a range of concepts (recall Marek's objection from the opposite direction, that the article was missing some important other meaning, thus not broad enough), but 202.124.72.203's objection here is simply not informed by the actual article. Every single one of the concepts in this article is either Clifford Shearing's original or a commentary on Shearing's. It is theoretically impossible to come up with a more consistent topic, unless that topic has only been discussed by a single person. When more than one person has discussed a topic, then literally the only thing we can ever do is cite what one source said and cite what other sources said in direct response. Huggins, Baker, Zedner and Shearing are all talking about precisely the same thing: Shearing's usage of neofeudalism. If this is not blatantly obvious enough for 202.124.72.203, then 202.124.72.203 is invited to either do the work of taking the full blockquotes and elaborating on their content, or, alternatively, to argue here for my inclusion of the full blockquotes.

Ultimately I agree with Dream Focus that the article should be broader than this, but I have stubbed it to focus exclusively on Shearing's usage in criminology just to demonstrate what a singular focus could look like, since this was one of the fashionable complaints from earlier. DeliciousBits (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Walton makes a convincing argument. Because some use the phrase differently doesn't mean its not a notable concept. Instead of having separate articles for each use of it, just put them together in their own sections here. Dream Focus 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see the article has been transformed again, into a quote farm that goes beyond "fair use" into copyvio territory. -- 202.124.73.219 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reversion in direct response to your facetious complaint that the authors were not talking about the same thing. Including the quotes demonstrates that they are all talking about Shearing's usage, and thus shows how you were wrong. Of course you're going to complain about it either way. Again, you are invited to do the work of taking the content of those blockquotes and incorporating it into the article in your own language. Please, find some way to contribute productively here. I believe the quotes are valid in this article, but that is a completely separate question from whether or not their substance can support an article. Do not conflate the two, and let's let the resident copyright experts decide what constitutes fair use (a discussion which can and should take place separately from AFD; this is simply not the venue for your new complaint, which you are invited to take instead to Wikipedia:Copyright problems). DeliciousBits (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite from scratch The term is clearly notable and used extensively in various literature, such as here, here (wow, that's old), here, and here, with many more examples besides. It's a term that seems to span from events in the far past, such as the formation of Mexico, and the present, this private governance thing. It's quite clear that the term is notable and has an extensive history that needs to be covered. The current article, however, is pretty much crap. The sources are useful though, but the rest of the article should be stubbed and rewritten from scratch with better formatting, organization, and little to no block quotes. Silver seren^C 05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added four more secondary sources, Marina Caparini, John Braithwaite, Ian Loader, and Randy Lippert & Daniel O'Connor, all of whom are referring directly to Clifford Shearing's use of the term, which remains the sole topic of this article. I think it is necessary to keep the blockquotes in for the duration of this AFD, since they all make clear they are referring to Shearing's usage, lest we get more lazy falsehoods like Drmies' when others don't bother to check the stub's sources. DeliciousBits (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added another secondary source from criminology, Les Johnston, who explicitly says that Shearing's concept has been influential in the field. DeliciousBits (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The present article is just an assembly of long quotations. According to a search for the title phrase in WorldCat, [54] "new feudalism has also been used for a variety of other topics. The 16th-18th century movement described by Volunteer Marek above is also a real historical topic, and not limited to Eastern europe, though I am do not recall what the normal name for it is in English-I do not think it's this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what the present article looks like without long quotations. It's coherent but would benefit from more summary of the cited sources. If the article survives AFD then I'll attempt some summary. DeliciousBits (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Altho, interestingly, I would define neofeudalism completely different from these people...--Metallurgist (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Mohan Kayastha

[edit]

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

I don't see how any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC are satisfied. There are no independent reliable sources showing significant impact. There are no prestigious academic awards or honors. The closest thing I can find is membership in the National Academy of Sciences, India which does not seem like "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". Muhandes (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Weak Keep. GS h-index of 14 in biomed field: not so good for WP:Prof#C1. Fellow of two National Academies: may pass WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This seems like a fair evaluation. The remaining issue is how exclusive and prestigious these societies are. National Academy of Sciences, India (NASI), not to be confused with the Indian National Science Academy (INSA), accepts about 50 fellows a year and has 1549 Fellows. Is each and every fellow notable enough for an article? I doubt it, but maybe they are. As for the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, India (NAAS) I must admit I did not think a local academy of a limited field (only India and only agricultural sciences) should be considered, but I may be wrong. If one is interested in numbers, the webpage says that NAAS has 512 fellows and accepts 24 fellows a year. --Muhandes (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "local" is the right word to use for an academy that covers a country containing a sixth of the world's population. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Dr Arun P. Sikarwar, Research Associate at JNCASR, Bangalore (India) (Wikipedia login id - arunlovy) and I myself edited wiki article for ARVIND MOHAN KAYASTHA. I have cautiously read the comments put against the this wiki article. I am agreed upon the comments by Muhandees and at my earliest, plan to make short this article as myself also dont have various weblinks of the matter. BUT I have request please dont delete this article and let it be a short one with valid citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.144.176.250 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve the article outside the main space you can ask for userfication. the issue here, however, is notability, not verifiability. It has little to do with the article, and all to do with whether the person is notable or not. --Muhandes (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a member of two national academies, particularly of the National Academy of Sciences, India - IMO satisfies WP:Prof#C3. Nsk92 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - h-index of 14 as per citations gadget. The subject has not done any groundbreaking work in his field. The person is a member is the National Academy of Sciences, India. NAS, India is certainly the oldest science society in India. But it is certainly not very selective. You can apply for a membership through this form. I really don't think a highly selective and prestigious will give out forms on its website. Also, as Muhendes points out the society takes in too many members a year. The person does not hold any distinguished positions at BHU. This article fails WP:PROF in all ways. And I don't see any point in keeping a short article about this person either, as Dr.Arun P. Sikarwar suggested. Regards! — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 14:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment i don't know anything about the NASI except what their website says, but regardless of their having an online application form, the rules for membership seem fairly selective. total membership is limited to 2000 in toto, whereas the USA NAS has, it seems, 2113 members. i'm tempted to figure out some proportions in relation to the populations of the u.s. and india, but am dissuaded by the different economic conditions of the countries. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't think it is very appropriate to compare scientific academies of a developed and developing country. I guess USA NAS would be having a good deal of Nobel laureates, McArthur fellows, and all kinds of people who have actually done considerable work in their field. The Indian NAS on the other hand have people from colleges and universities that are not very popular even in India. I'm not discriminating against the Indian NAS, but I don't think it is very selective when it comes to selecting fellows. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C3 and WP:BIAS. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how you can apply WP:BIAS to an academic working in a scientific domain. The very quality of an academic is indicated by his/her's published work. If his work was noteworthy, people would've read it. It doesn't really matter whether he came from a developing country. Did C. V. Raman, Ramanujan or Chandrasekhar go unnoticed because they were Indians? And from what I could make out, WP:BIAS deals mostly with cultural bias, in which case I agree that developing countries are often unnoticed. This applies to academics studying about the culture of such countries too. But somebody working in biomedicine? I hardly think so! I don't think a western scientist has to understand the culture of India to judge a work by an Indian scientist. I think the same rationale can be applied while comparing two national science academies. Unless it has produced people who have done good scientific work, it can't be counted as a prestigious or important academy. And as before, I think that the WP:BIAS argument fails here too.

comment — the significance of wp:bias in this case seems to me to be that the subject of the article is a member of two national societies, and that would generally say that he meets wp:prof#3, but nobody contributing to this discussion seems to have any solid feeling for how those societies compare to western ones. obviously we wouldn't be having this afd debate if he were a fellow of the nas in the usa. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply I understand why wp:bias was brought here. But I disagree with your statement that two national societies can't be compared. After all, what you look for is the science and published work when comparing two such societies. If you haven't heard of a society then it is for a good reason - obscurity. Do you really think that the NSA in USA or Russia is famous because of the country rather than for work? You should also look into the percentage of scientists from the USA who get into such societies (very less) and the percentage of Indian scientists who get in (very high).

comment I may be missing something here, but isn't WP:PROF#C3 just a way to measure an academic's contribution to science? I am not aware of fellows of the United States National Academy of Sciences for which there is doubt of their contribution to science (admittedly I did not research the subject in detail, this is based on impression). Yet not a single editor here claimed that this academic made such a contribution, instead we debate if a technical membership is enough in a lawyerish manner. Shouldn't the basic criterion still be contribution to the field? --Muhandes (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of all of the WP:PROF guidelines is that we don't try to make our own subjective judgement of whether an academic's contribution to a field is important (which would be original research), but follow the judgement of others, whether that is the judgement of those who cite their papers, who appoint them to senior academic positions, or select them for membership or fellowship of highly selective academies, such as this one whose membership is restricted to 2000 out of a population of over a billion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — per David Eppstein. i hadn't seen wp:bias, so thank you for showing me words for what i couldn't figure out how to say. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Myself Dr. Arun P. Sikarwar has authored the Wiki article for Prof. Arvind Mohan Kayastha. I have once again edited the page with more citations and appropriate information and hence forth I strongly believe that article should remain on Wikipedia as the the person seems notable in science fraternity. He has ample recognition and achievements in science community. I am thankful for frank comments from so many friends over this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunlovy (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have always regard membership in the national academy of any major nation as notable. There's no need to infer from citations--the selection for the NAS has done the determination for us. Unless , of course, we want to pretend we can do it better. The entire concept of WP:N is that notability is determined by outside bodies qualified to do so, not by the judgment of Wikipedians. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But does not the notability and authority of the outside body come into picture? Frankly, how many people you've heard of are solely from this Academy? You can't argue that this is because you are not familiar with India or its people. There is no "Indian Science" or "American Science", and I don't think the National in "NAS" gives the body a special status. Wouldn't be the American NAS be as famous and reputable if they had called it something else? I guess the Royal Society gives a very good example in this context. And I really don't think being a member of an arbitrary NAS is a good reason to have an article on a scientist. Would you consider an article about a person who is just a member of the Krakozhia National Academy of Sciences as notable? Finally your statement "We have always regard membership in the national academy of any major nation as notable" seems to be a bad interpretation of WP:PROF#C3 which only talks about a "highly selective society". So to decide whether the Indian NAS is highly selective we need to have a discussion and look at other factors. Thank you. 115.248.114.51 (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It comes into point--only national bodies count, not state or provincial ones. It's not the name that counts, the names do vary. What counts is the nature: this is the principal national organization for recognition at the highest level of the profession. Krakozhia would not be acceptable, being a fictional country. If you want to challenge some real ones, use real examples. I am not sure that some of the very smallest countries would qualify---those with only one or two universities, of those countries not associated with more than one or two notable scientists. India is at the other end of the scale from that on both counts. I think you are arguing that the body need necessarily have the same international status ad the US NAS or the Royal Society. Those are indeed almost certainly the ones with the very highest prestige, but that several layers down would still be sufficient to confer notability. Where the boundary line should be drawn is somewhere I'm not certain about, and whether it should be by general prominence or some more exact criterion I'm also not sure about. (It's not a question of notability of the Society, for in even the smallest countries the Society itself would be notable, but whether the society is so impotant that being a member of it proves notability . My main consideration would be that if it a body in which all people of the highest academic frank of full professor routinely sit, it would not indicate notability. India has many times more full professors in its hundreds of notable universities, than members of this academy. DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with you about certain things. But wouldn't it be worthwhile to consider whether a member of this particular society fits the other requirements of WP:PROF before calling it notable? I'll agree that this society is notable if at least 10% of the members (that's about 200) of this society satisfy any other criterion of WP:PROF other than #C3. Also note that if you go by standards the Indian Academy of Sciences is definitely more notable and prestigious. If this person had belonged to the IAS I would definitely vote for a keep. You might also want to compare the kind of fellows in the NAS and IAS for a more clear idea -- IAS NAS. 115.248.114.51 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured bus

[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notable. Although the article establishes that it is possible to armor a bus, and it has been done now and then, there is no evidence that this has been recognized as a notable topic by secondary sources -- bringing together WWI troop transport vehicles, modern anti-terrorism buses, and prisoner transport buses as the article does. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nominator says this appears to be a conflating of different instances of admitting a transport vehicle. The examples should be under armoured personnel carrier, vehicle armour etc. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- saberwyn 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the bottom of the article, there is a box with many kinds of buses that one could also argue are not notable. The armoured bus is definitely more notable, for its pervasive use as urban troop transport in high-risk areas, especially the absurd fact that in some places in the world, there is a necessity for armoured school buses, as if they are legitimate targets for any insurgent/militant. --Shuki (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Flayer (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appear to be plenty of sources which mention or discuss armoured buses, I'm not sure where the claim of no notability has come from. Seems perfectly encyclopaedic to have an article on the history and practice of armoured buses. Vehicle armour is mostly about the types and technologies of armour rather than the practice of applying it to specific vehicles, while armoured personnel carrier deals with the concept of 'armoured fighting vehicles designed to transport infantry to the battlefield.' Given that these buses are mostly used in a civilian context, a merge is not appropriate. Benea (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each source seems to be about individual instances of armored buses. I don't see any source discussing them as a whole. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you got the idea that that qualifies as a fail of the GNG? The GNG confirms that the subject 'need not be the main topic of the source material'. Benea (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found plenty of reliable sources. Seems to be a notable topic. Marokwitz (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Benea's google link. Haus^Talk 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The substantial number of RS refs reflect notability, when one looks at the specific articles.. One suggestion -- I would change the name of the article to the US spelling, and make the English spelling a redirect, as the US spelling seems to be the more typical one.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who changes the spelling is risking getting this on their talk page Template:Uw-lang :-) --Shuki (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm not entirely sure that this is succifently distinct from an armored car to merit its own article, but I'm willing to give it a chance to grow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete for all the reasons given below -- The Anome (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex-neutral skill

[edit]

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

Delete, or merge to Sex differences in humans. The only specific mention of "sex neutral skill" is in Ann Harriman's book, Women/men/management, and it appears once in passing. There is no common usage of this term and there is no published definition of it. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.72.56 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.72.56 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 202.124.72.56 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term does not appear in the literature (GB or GS) except as noted by nom, and contents of the article is WP:SYNTH, with out-of-context quotes that do not support the interpretation given. -- 202.124.72.56 (talk) 08:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another of his endless series of original research and synthesis "articles". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one more of this editor's WP:SYNTH farms.--Cerejota (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Apparently has not played in a professional league yet, so does not currently pass the notability guidelines. The article can be recreated/undeleted once professional league debut is made. Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Maâyouf

[edit]

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

Never played at professional level, fails WP:NFOOTY TonyStarks (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 met Wikipedia:FPL which would mean the player meets Wikipedia:NFOOTY. Adam4267 (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He signed from an amateur club this past summer and has yet to make his professional debut. Don't worry, I'm a JS Kabylie fan, so the day he makes his debut and qualifies through WP:NFOOTY, I'll be the first to create his article :D.TonyStarks (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence he has actually played, failing WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odin Assemble

[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this software. The creator has a conflict of interest since their username is Odinmetatech. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AVENGERS ASSEMBLE and delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete- unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as probable advert. Dialectric (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Dialectric. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed: article was speedily deleted by User:Fastily = Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reox

[edit]

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

I found zero significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; also note that the article contains so few actual facts that it resists improvement by editing. So tagging: REO Exchange is a cooperative that brings broker agents and valuable bank contacts together to foster long-term business relationships to benefit both sides. Designed to assist asset managers in finding truly qualified broker agents to serve their REO properties, REO Exchange is endorsed by asset managers nationwide who use this site as an effective tool to search a large and comprehensive list of brokers. REO Exchange is a one-stop media source that is not limited to the members of an organization of overwhelmed, overworked REO brokers or those who have signed up with a portal to receive properties yet have not experience to close the deals and create the right relationships. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 2 listings have not attracted consensus.' ,maybe a reoeat in 6 months might get more attention DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Duets Arab World

[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Article is totally unsourced FiachraByrne (talk) 11:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - article has been moved to Celebrity Duets ديو المشاهير, tho I have preserved the original title as a redirect. Syrthiss (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to a title all in the Roman alphabet, either Celebrity Duets Arab World or something more appropriate. As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) says, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 1 September 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, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: The primary issue, being notability, has not yet been addressed. Secondary issues, such as article titles, can also be explored but the main issue remains to be notability. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Futurama crew

[edit]

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

This page doesn't really say very much, and I have created a category that does the same thing (Category:Futurama production crew). The only thing the category doesn't have is a listing for Mark Ervin, because he doesn't have his own article. However, I think this article is sufficiently unnecessary that it could be deleted. Alphius (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The creation of the category goes directly against the overcategorization guidelines; I have nominated it for deletion. It is standard to deal with these topics by articles, not by categories. For that reason, the page should probably be kept to retain the information, though it currently is a poor quality article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 1) Lists and categories are not exclusive. 2) This list doesn't add much that you can't find in List of writers of Futurama. Could we possibly merge those two lists? --Maitch (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that it was against the overcategorization guidelines. I have deleted the category links from the articles that I put into the category. Alphius (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support merging this article with List of writers of Futurama, though. Alphius (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunday Paper

[edit]

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

I found zero sources for this website. This source is in the article, but that isn't enough. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above source was published in the same city that this website was created in. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 3 September 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) 01:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to any notability, let alone proven. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miho Tanaka (model)

[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miss Tanaka has an extensive portfolio, of nearly 100 print and television appearences. The article is however, a stub, and cites Japanese language sources. Nevertheless, citations given on her agency website (in Japanese) are mainstream media sources and are both notable and verifiable. Citation must be improved. Personal disclosure: even though I lived in Japan as a child, I am hardly fluent in Japanese.Flyingtent (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article itself doesn't exactly make the strongest argument for her notability, it seems to me, and it links only to her official site. No refs. Gnews turns up nothing. Flyingtent's link does list what might be notable TV appearances, but it's all just a list of credits with no media coverage to be seen. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:37, 8 September 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) 01:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Fleck

[edit]

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

Notable only for one event. Ridernyc (talk) 02:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's argument would be a good one if a review of the reliable sources showed that she was discussed only in the weeks or months following her invention. However, Google Books search shows significant coverage in reliable sources, namely books about young inventors, for at least fifteen years after she invented her unique cooking device. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yeah, notable for one event - she was written about in books for years after the invention was created.SL93 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 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) 01:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability of the topic is established. See [55] and [56]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed, it looks like there is notability per the sources above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Lacy

[edit]

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

Does not make the notability guidelines for college athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opguip (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lacy and Trent Richardson are the starting running backs for Alabama, the No. 2 college football team in the USA. He's already received a fair amount of non-trivial coverage, including some in the national media. See, e.g., (1) Eddie Lacy opts for Alabama over Oklahoma, ESPN.com, Feb. 4, 2009; (2) Alabama's Lacy focusing on fumbles; USA Today, Aug. 10, 2011; (3) Eddie Lacy Interview, CBSSports.com; (4) Injury rumors swirl around Tide’s Eddie Lacy, NBC Sports, July 28, 2011; (5) Spin and control: Tide RB Eddie Lacy wants hands to catch up to his feet, The Birmingham News, Aug. 15, 2011; (6) Lacy taking his lapses of last year to heart Lacy taking his lapses of last year to heart, The Anniston Star, Aug. 11, 2011; (7) Dutchtown RB Lacy leads prospects headed out of state, The Advocate (Louisiana), Feb. 5, 2009; (8) 'Little Strain' Doesn't Bother Eddie Lacy, BamaMag.com, Aug. 10, 2011; (9) Alabama running back Eddie Lacy explains injury, AI.com; (10) Not a day too soon, UA signee Eddie Lacy gets word from the NCAA clearinghouse, Mobile Press-Register; (11) Alabama's Lacy awaits his chance, The Gadsden Times, Aug. 10, 2011; (12) Bama's Eddie Lacy focused; (13) Alabama's Eddie Lacy trying to avoid fumble troubles in new role as No. 2 back, The Republic (Indiana); (14) Tide's Lacy: I'll be ready, Tuscaloosa News; (15) Why Eddie Lacy Chose Alabama, Scout with FoxSports.com on msn; (16) An 'improved' Eddie Lacy making his move at Alabama, Mobile Press-Register, Aug. 23, 2011; (17) Lacy making mark with Griffins, The Advocate (Baton Rouge); (18) No more fumble-itis, That’s Lacy’s promise as he rises to No. 2 on Tide depth chart, The Decatur Daily, August 11, 2011; (19) Eddie Lacy now ready to embrace role as Crimson Tide's No. 2 running back, Ledger-Enquirer (Columbus, GA), August 11, 2011; (20) Lacy will try to take Panthers for spin, Press-Register, Nov. 18, 2010; (21) Eddie Lacy appears to have inside track as No. 3 Tide tailback, Dothan Eagle, August 11, 2010; (22) 'Bama Bound: Lacy signs letter of intent with Crimson Tide, Weekly Citizen (Louisiana), Feb. 5, 2009; (23) Griffin's Lacy named to 5A All-State first-team, Weekly Citizen, Dec. 30, 2008; (24) Lacy headlines all-District 6-5A team, Weekly Citizen, Dec. 16, 2008; . Enough already to satisfy WP:GNG, and it's going to grow by leaps and bounds as the season gets underway starting on Saturday. Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although there are several instances of non-trivial coverage, after reading through it all, he strikes me as a run-of-the mill backup running back for a major collegiate program. He doesn't appear to be a starter (he appears to be Richardson's backup), and in any event, he doesn't inherit notability from the team. cmadler (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sophomore, Lacy is the No. 2 running back on the No. 2 team in the United States. Alabama makes full use of two running backs in its offense. Richardson was Alabama's No. 2 when he was a sophomore last year and still gained 700 yards. The No. 2 running back in a program like Alabama's is a marquis player. See, e.g., this article noting that Mark Ingram (Heisman Trophy winner) and Trent Richardson were Alabama's "one-two punch" in 2010 and then making this comparison: "But those close to the program think that the Richardson-Eddie Lacy duo may put up bigger and better numbers and go down as the best duo in recent history." Aside from the favorable comparison, what really matters is the extent of coverage given to Lacy. The coverage is clearly more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG and with the national coverage he also passes WP:NCOLLATH #3. If a college athlete with this level of coverage can be deleted, then no college athlete is safe from the deletionists. Cbl62 (talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with my initial !vote on this one, on the basis of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, at least until/unless additional information or sources are brought forward. GNG says that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". The fact that he plays for Alabama, the #2 team in the country is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). The fact that Richardson gained 700 yards in this position last year is also irrelevant to Lacy (WP:CRYSTAL). If Lacy does likewise this year, I may support article inclusion at the end of the season, but that hasn't happenned yet (WP:CRYSTAL). cmadler (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College Football project can encourage using a player's respective team page or team season page for players who have not established notability outside of the team. If the player becomes notable, the existing text can then be used to create a new article. —Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable college athlete. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cbl. Plenty of non-trivial sources in there to help the subject pass WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 04:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points raised by Cbl62. Altairisfar (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His most notable WP:IMPACT to-date is being a backup running back and WP:INHERITED notability of playing for high profile team. He signed from high school (great!), he's injured this week (oh no!), his prospects this year look good (hooray!). WP:GNG only claims a presumption of notability, and allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." No prejudice to recreate if/when his story has enduring significance.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach pushes notability into a realm of complete subjectivity that allows people to vote to delete on the grounds of "I don't like it" even though a person has received massive news coverage. To delete an athlete who meets both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #3, there needs to be a very powerful rationale. This level of coverage is truly extraordinary, the antithesis of "routine." Also, your argument that a person must have "enduring" impact is problematic because (a) it's inconsistent with our principle that notability is not temporary, and (b) it requires us to speculate as to what will or won't "endure." If a businessman or politician received this level of coverage, I don't think people would be voting to delete. There should not be a different standard for athletes. Cbl62 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be subjective, as we are all asked to use WP:COMMONSENSE and not blindly follow rules or count the number sources based on a word count. We discuss to form a consensus based on our subjective views to rule out minority opinions. There is no need to worry, as everyone is acting on good faith and it all works itself out. It is incorrect to say the article meets GNG when—as Cmadler pointed out—the guidelines "establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion" and I noted in my !vote that GNG allows that "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." Your interpretation of notability not being temporary is incorrect, as it specifically says "it does not need to have ongoing coverage" in reference to the length of coverage; it does not say to ignore the lasting WP:IMPACT of the subject. WP:OTHERSTUFF existing about politicians is not a reason to lower standards for athletes. Be bold and fix it. Finally your insinuation of editors using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a reason is inappropriate when explanation of policies that the article fails have been provided. —Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree. Lacy passes the bar of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #3. Those are objective standards, as they should be. Sometimes the extent of coverage is in a grey area, and we have to use some common sense, but the coverage here is massive. In other cases,we remain free to ignore the rules and the presumptions of notability. But there's no good reason to do that unless there's a compelling reason, and certainly not in a case where the person in question has had such massive coverage, including national media coverage. Also, you misunderstood my point about businessmen and politicians. My point is that there are some people who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of athletes is a bad thing, that athletics is trivial and of lesser importance than other endeavors. Because of that personal distaste for sports, some would apply a higher notability standard to athletes than they would to businessmen and local politicians. I strongly believe that such a subjective bias is inappropriate and that all biographies should be subject to the same WP:GNG standard. If the level of coverage is good enough for a businessman to pass WP:GNG, then that same level of coverage should also be enough for an athlete. That's all. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we may disagree whether the subject is notable, let's not erroneously frame GNG as objective when it is not. As WP:What notability is not points out, GNG "contains four subjective words, specifically "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It advises us to "not seek to stifle debate simply by declaring that notability is an objective fact." It suggests "the contents and subject of the article should frame the debate, and arguments should be put forward relating specifically to that content and subject." While the sheer number of sources is sometimes indicative of notability, it should not be a substitute for assessing what the sources say to determine whether the subject earns consensus for notability. Its up to consensus to determine if a backup player on a high profile team who may break out in the future and be a star is notable enough for a standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are relying on an essay that reflects that person's view, which is not policy, and which I believe is erroneous. Both WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH (the latter of which you continue to ignore) are attempts to set forth objective tests of notability. We can determine objectively whether sources are reliable and whether they are independent. On the issues of whether the coverage is "significant," there are close cases where we have to use our judgment (which does involve an element of subjectivity). But there are many, many cases (as here where the coverage is so extensive) when it's pretty clear that the coverage is significant. It is also true that, even where GNG is met, we have the ability to ignore the rules and try to rebut the presumption of notability. But a presumption is intended to be difficult to overturn. That's the very purpose of a presumption. While subjectivity can play a part in a decision to ignore the rules and rebut the presumption, it's my view that those types of "opinion" based decisions to ignore the objective standards should be limited to extraordinary cases. If you would like to debate these broader issues further, leave a note on my talk page. Let's not clutter this AfD further with our differing views on this. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A multitude of diverse, reliable sources (many listed above) establishing notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't think the coverage of this player rises past the level of ROUTINE everyday coverage of a player on a prominent team, and I don't think he meets Criteria #3 of WP:NCOLLATH. That said, though - it's a narrow thing, and I'm inclined to give this one a pass, as there will likely be additional coverage as the season progresses. Why bother deleting now, only to end up recreating the article when more sources are available? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per cmanler and Bagumba, sources read that Lacy is a run-of-the-mill athlete without impact. Not allowing the fear that he might be notable in the future be the reason to keep, nor am I moved by sources added about one game in 2011. Peace to the presumption of notability camp, but overruling in this case. Norespectasip (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Very, very few college football players receive such extensive coverage in the mainstream media. Lacy is by no means "run-of-the mill." Nor is the coverage he has received. I regularly vote to "Delete" college football articles on players who don't receive extensive coverage, and there are plenty of them. The coverage afforded to Lacy is extraordinary and anything but "run-of-the-mill." And WP:IMPACT is an essay (not policy) and is not a basis for deletion. It also doesn't apply since it's point concerns "the notability of people who might be known for one event." Athletes who have competed in multiple games and events have not been treated as "one-event" biographies. Cbl62 (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, essay versus policy? The fifth pillar: Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Norespectasip (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that we can ignore the rules. I just don't see a good reason to do so in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 9 September 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Per reliable sources listed above that verify notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC) You don't get to vote twice. Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable college player with coverage that doesn't rise above the routine. User:Cbl62 and I have come to an "agreement" to respectfully disagree on each others position on same type of coverage before. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Lots of independent coverage, and thus notability can be established. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per sources. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brislington F.C.

[edit]

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

Non notable amateur football club, no references to satisfy WP:ORG. Prod declined Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This meets the guidelines without a doubt - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. Out of interest, why did you single out this article instead of the many other articles of clubs at the same level? Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In what way does this club meet the essay on football notability: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria."? I see no refences to this club having played in the FA Cup, which is the national cup for England. Oh, and I don't think any of the clubs you mention meet the notability guidelines either. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They played in the FA Cup last Saturday, and have done for every season since 1995. [57]. All teams of this level play in the FA Cup.. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may compete in preliminary or qualifying rounds, so do hundreds of others. The haven't competed at 1st Round or better level. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those hundreds of others are also notable. Take a look at 2010–11 FA Cup qualifying rounds. Every team has its own article. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? What matters here is can anyone demonstrate that this club meets the notability guideline, WP:ORG. We need reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the article subject. The essay that you quoted above is just an essay, not a guideline or a policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's why my first argument was based on its notability according to that essay, although I believe that it is a valid argument in this case. That essay is a pretty accurate reflection of the consensus on articles like these, and the existence of all those articles on the FA Cup page is proof of that. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in the national cup, seems notable to me. Giant Snowman 13:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. This team isn't some random small Sunday team, it is a professional club in an established league, on levels 9-10 of the English football leagues system. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence that it is a professional club? The article has an uncited assertion that it fields a semi-professiona side. And playing in rounds to qualify for the FA Cup is not the same as playing in the FA Cup. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a professional club, but is certainly not amateur either. In the FA cup, the qualifying rounds are considered to be part of the competition. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral – I get what you mean by passing WP:GNG what with references being very space about this club apart from the official website, but particularly in the cases of English lower-league football, the essay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability often trumps WP:GNG as it is assumed that if a team has played in the FA Cup or at the 10th level (no matter what point in history, even if level 10 clubs at the time couldn't apply for the FA Cup) then it already passes WP:GNG. Despite the fact that this is demonstrably a false assumption and it means we end up with a stub articles about teams that once played in the Extra Preliminary round of the 1926 FA Cup (read: bunch of guys that got together and applied to play in a cup competition together) and automatically get an article. Extreme example, but this is what it creates. However, it usually saves a lot of arguing. I voted keep as it definately passes general consensus (albeit one that I personally think should change to account for anomalies). Delusion23 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references, just an external link to the club website, a primary source, and an external link to a site hosted on a btinternet personal home page. There are no citations of WP:RS providing substantial coverage of the club. Essays do not trump the notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'd be interested in seeing a discussion about how this team actually passes WP:GNG and not just passes WP:FootyN. I've switched to neutral. Delusion23 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have seen you have tagged the Football History Database as an unreliable source when in fact it's the major "go to" source for any information about non-league and defunct football teams in use on Wikipedia... Delusion23 (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources, it is a personal web site, hosted by btinternet.co.uk which is no longer maintained by Richard Rendle since 2006. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For info, it has in fact been accepted as a reliable source at literally dozens of FLCs under WP:SPS. See here for a case where Ealdgyth (talk · contribs), a known authority on reliable sources, confirms it as acceptable.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find that surprising, as the policy that you cite says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Surely this information is available in "reliable third-party publications". As it stands this article relies totally on the club's own web site and a self published source, which may or may not be accurate. No evidence has been produced to show that Richard Rendle is an established expert. There is nothing here to satisfy the WP:GNG. If there is no substantial coverage by WP:RS, then clearly the subject is not notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have discovered another serious concern. The article as it stood at 8 September 2011 was a direct cut and paste from a document on the Toolstation Western League website, authored by JackRog, presumably Jack Rogers, the club Programme and Website Manager. This Word document is written on the clubs own notepaper. Although the article text has since been trimmed, it is still a close paraphrase of the original and thus a copyright violation. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier version of the document was archived by the Internet archive on 12 October 2007. And this material was introduced to the article by User:Jackrog, who definitely has a clear conflict of interest, on 27 October 2008. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does he have a conflict of interest? It's perfectly OK for someone to edit an article on a subject they are involved with, as long as it's written from a neutral point of view. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those with a conflict of interest may edit articles carefully, but the material added by this editor was rather promotional in tone, as well as being a clear copyright violation, although the worst excesses have since been removed by others. The close paraphrasing issue does remain as well as the lack of reliable sources. This article does not meet the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I misunderstanding something? He submitted material, which is found elsewhere on the web, but the evidence points towards him being the original author. It's not a "clear copyright violation", more like a "possible copyright violation". We should contact him to find out before making such statements. I will look into contacting him tomorrow, if no one does it before then. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material is published on a website with a clear copyright notice: "Copyright ©2011 Western Football League Ltd., Unless Otherwise Stated. All Rights Reserved." If he wishes to donate the material then he will need to publish it under a suitable copyleft license. Details of how to go about this can be found at WP:PERMISSION. Wikipedia is very careful about copyright issues. All Wikipedia material is available to anyone to use under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL. So we can't have copyright material on this project. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content to a Wikipedia article means releasing your content under the appropriate licenses. There are clear warnings above the submit button. As long as it was his content to release, there is no problem. This is not a clear copyright violation. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it has been published elsewhere with a copyright notice as noted above. Following the receipt of an email from the company secretary of the Toolstation Western League, the copyright violations have been removed. Full details and the email on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club meets the notability criteria set by numerous AfDs (probably close to 30 now). I have also removed the "unreliable source" tag on the FCHD - it's not unreliable and ChrisTheDude provides the reasoning (and link) above. Number 5 7 13:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playing devil's advocate, but you show it meets the usual criteria for FOOTYN, but does the article actually meet WP:GNG? The team doesn't seem to have had significant independent coverage. Delusion23 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Dovydenas vs. The Bible Speaks

[edit]

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

Non-notable case. Nomination started by IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider a merge with Carl H. Stevens Jr.. There was extensive coverage of this case and its aftermath: GNews yields 180+ hits over a period of years[58], such as these: [59], [60], [61], [62]. Also 120 hits at gBooks[63]. I note that mention of this case at Carl H. Stevens Jr. was deleted for lack of references[64].--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at [65], this seems to be a potentially notable bankruptcy case. It's a federal appellate court case, and the court opens by noting its "unique procedural history." Bankruptcy law is not my area, but perhaps someone knowledgeable in the field could Shepardize In re The Bible Speaks; Dovydenas v. The Bible Speaks, 69 F.2d 628 (1st Cir. 1989); and comment. It's certainly interesting; I don't know whether it rises to notable. TJRC (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most federal appellate decisions are not notable because they are routine, and issued in far greater number than Supreme Court opinions, and among the courts of appeal, the First Circuit is far less influential than, say, the Second, Seventh, or Ninth. "Unique procedural history" doesn't mean anything regarding the case's significance, unless the case itself decided some distinct issue of procedural law. Did the court's decision establish an important legal precedent that has been adopted outside of the 1st Circuit? Has it been widely discussed by secondary sources?
  All indications are that no particular opinion in this case is itself notable, that the lawsuit only impacted the parties, and so if it were to be a standalone article would be about the lawsuit as a whole, rather than any particular court's decision in it. Neither of the parties even have articles, however. If The Bible Speaks is just covered in the Carl Stevens article, then that would be an appropriate place for a sentence or three about the lawsuit, but I'm not seeing any basis for maintaining this as a separate article. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the significance of appellate cases, of course. I am not arguing that it is notable (I would have used Keep rather than Comment if I were). I'm suggesting that someone familiar with the subject area (which appears to be rescission of donative agreements under bankruptcy) may be able to determine its notability, and am pointing out the cite to assist in that. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete are there any sources to back up the claim that the subject was a "landmark" event? Unsourced. Fails WP:EFFECT. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's "landmark" (and I think that word is unnecessary), but it may be notable. Besides other cases (in which it is fairly often cited), it's discussed in the Journal of Law and Religion's 1987 Survey of Trends and Developments on Religious Liberty in the Courts, as well as the following papers: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] and [71] by Jonathan Turley. I have three of these. I'll read them later and see report back here on whether I find substantial coverage which could hold together a verifiable article. DeliciousBits (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citation by Turley is not very substantial. It is indicative of the case's notability, but I don't see how any content from Turley could be incorporated into the article. The 1987 Journal of Law and Religion citation is substantial, giving two pages of summary that could be incorporated into making a verifiable article here. But among those few articles I was able to access, I find the best evidence of notability to be the Brooklyn Law Review article from 2008, indicating that this case is still having an impact today. That article is also the most useful for our purposes here, as Sherman spends two pages discussing the meaning of the case to the concept of "undue influence" generally. I've quoted him in the article for reference during this AFD. I hope it can stand as evidence during AFD, after which other editors may pare down the quote as they see fit. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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