Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 19

< 18 August	20 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article was speedied under WP:G8 for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 09:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hanadama

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

Wikipedia is an area where neutral information is placed about a subject. The article for Hanadama is biased and directs end users to a website of a seller of pearls who is trying to privately brand pearls under a hanadama label fooling consumers in thinking that the pearls come from one sole authority in Japan that grades pearls when in reality, there are dozens and dozens of private companies that place a hanadama label on a wide range of pearls reflecting a wide range of qualities. Hanadama is not an official grade. Please see below:

Hanadama is a Japanese word that refers to "flower pearls". The Mikimoto pearl company that sells pearls sometimes

uses the term to describe their pearls. In fact, it is Mikimoto's use of the term Hanadama that made it popular in the jewelry

industry as it relates to pearls. There are many privately operated appraisal companies that place labels on their appraisal

paperwork with the word Hanadama. However, these companies are not affiliated with Mikimoto. Hanadama is not an

official grading system. The Gemological Institute of America does offer a grading system for pearls. In fact, from their

website it says "Over the past 100 years, discoveries in pearl culturing have revolutionized the industry, all but completely

replacing natural pearls with cultured pearls. By the end of the 20th century, several types of cultured pearls were being

produced in an overwhelming variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. In response, GIA sought to create a standard for pearl

grading and terminology—much as it had with diamonds in the 1950s. Its pearl-grading system, launched in 1998, was

based on GIA's 7 Pearl Value Factors™: size, shape, color, luster, surface quality, nacre quality, and matching." The very

best surface grade for a Hanadama necklace is "very slightly imperfect". Therefore the "Hanadama" label assigned by The

Pearl Science Lab is one label of many labels from many, many small private company that operates in Japan that each

appraise Hanadama pearls.

Not only does this contradict what is written on the Mikimoto website (http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html) "...hanadama, or 'flower pearls', which denotes the highest quality pearls.", it also contradicts what you posted on your own website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060207012322/www.americanpearl.com/collectionselection.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.150.82 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Regardless of this poorly structured nomination, the article is a deliberate duplicate of Hanadama Pearls, there seems little point in having two AFDs in parallel. Fæ (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evology

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

Seems to be made-up term. No evidence that Evology actually exists, apart from one non-notable blog. sciencewatcher (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the articles linked to as sources do not use the term, which to me suggests that this is OR. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be a nonnotable neologism. --Orlady (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Original research with no reliable sources to support the existence of this term. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments and close in analagous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Prosapio. –MuZemike 23:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream War

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

Advertisement for an un-noteworthy self-published ebook ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1], [2]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two of the sources in the article are newspapers doing reviews, Sadads (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems the coverage is more about the contest than the book. Lionel (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is more about the contest, and it's not very in-depth anyway. The book, apparently, has made no waves whatsoever, nor has the author (that article uses the same sources). Sadads, those articles are NOT reviews. Please read them carefully. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stub article for non-notable book. The cited articles are human interest pieces that focus as much on the author and the contest as they do on the book. Book is self-published and does not meet the threshold standards of WP:NB. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Prosapio

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

This is a advertising page for a person who does not meet WP's Notability criteria. ReasonsAdvocate (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean except for the coverage in reliable, secondary sources? Keep WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two Newspaper mentions as sources = notable, Sadads (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. First-time writer who won a contest to get his book published is not in and of itself notable, but there were two articles published, so that me enough to push him over the line. I am concerned that it appears the Mr. Prosapio has done most of the contributions to this article and to the article on his book, Dream War using the name Supnobull. Note also that the text on this article copies the text on Mr. Prosapio's official web site word for word. See http://www.prosapio.com/ (note the "no bull blog" section). --Crunch (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google News gives us one hit for the author. The article adds one more. So that makes two short newspaper articles--that's not enough, really, for notability purposes. Same goes for his book, BTW, Dream Wars.Drmies (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Just being a new author (book published in July of 2010) should not be reason to discard. Keep Sjpnobull (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sjpnobull -- are you Stephen J. Prosapio? I'm just asking because the similarity between your name and his web site (initials SJP plus the "no bull" thing) seems more than coincidental. --Crunch (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Stub article for non-notable persona who was the subject of a couple of human interest pieces for local papers. Does not meet even the most basic guidelines of WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CamGSM

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

Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. This user has also created articles about other non-notable Cambodia companies in which this firm has invesed (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nautisco Seafood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Breweries) User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is the Leopard Capital investment) |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - regardless of teh motivations of the article's creator, CamGSM is the largest mobile telecom provider in its country [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that automatically mean it is notable if the country is Cambodia? I don't think that the largest in cambodia is an automatic qualifier. There are not many cambodian companies in Wikipedia, the bulk of which have been added by this user for companies in which he has some personal connection through Leopard Capital |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pretty much notable for any country I would venture to say. The largest wireless telecom provider for any country is going to attract coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then you should rely on the coverage that it has attracted (or not). |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There certainly is coverage about the company [4], [5], and as it is not an English-speaking, additional coverage is not going to be easily found by me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is pretty scant coverage. The company name is mentioned briefly in one article and the other article where there is some additional "coverage" is in some minor trade publication which I could find had only been used in one other article in all of wikipedia as a reference. Like I said originally, the only notable thing that ever happened to this company was an investment in it by a small private equity firm that seems to be eager to draw attention to itself. I think when you step back this is a stretch. It is one of six or seven mobile phone companies in Cambodia (maybe it is the largest but where is the verification of this?), there is limited third party coverage and the only reason there is an article is because a problematic COI editor intends to use it for WP:ADVERT. I tend to be an inclusionist but I find little reason to support keeping this article. There is limited content of any value and if you wanted to save it, the better route would be to show what would be done with the article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That's in English language sources. I have no idea what coverage is like in non-English sources. I would expect that the largest wireless provider in a country would have coverage in the that country. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that brought up in an AfD discussion and don't think that is a very good argument. This is the English Wikipedia. I looked again and all I found were some press releases about buying some equipment. It is just limited coverage and that is one of the criteria for WP:CORP so my argument is that this fails that threshold of notability. There is nothing in WP:CORP about a quota of articles about companies in a specific industry being represented in each country. If this company were bought tomorrow by a multi-national, would the next biggest company suddenly become automatically notable? I think we need to relist this discussion and get some other opinions|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CORP:

Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists."

Reply - There may be Wikipedia:Systemic bias at play here as I suspect that neither of us are particularly adept at finding Khmer language sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. No significant secondary coverage to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq (talk · contribs). There is significant coverage in reliable sources. See this entry in "Asia Pacific Telecom Newsletter" and this entry in Country Report: Cambodia, Laos. These sources, coupled with those found by Whpq, are enough to establish notability. That CamGSM is the largest mobile telecom provider in its country strongly indicates that there are non-English sources about CamGSM; this would further establish notability. However, the sources found in this discussion are enough to establish that this company passes Wikipedia:Notability (company) and this article passes Wikipedia:Verifiability due to the nontrivial coverage in several third-party reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Adequate sources added. (non-admin closure) — Timneu22 · talk 08:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bamiyeh

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

PROD was applied because there are no sources provided, no indications of importance. Author removed without addressing these concerns. So here we are. — Timneu22 · talk 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added some sources, I believe this article barely meets our notability requirements, though I'll stress it just barely does based on the quick search I made trying to expand the article. I'd like for the article to have some time to be expanded, since it's about a traditional Iranian dish which has already been mentioned in other articles (doughnut, Persian marriage, loukoumades, Iranian cuisine, list of festivals in Iran). I suppose it might also work as a redirect to loukoumades; that article claims that "bamieh" is an alternate name for the dessert, but I'm not certain if they're exactly the same thing. If so the redirect would be appropriate. -- Atama頭 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Atama, Bamieh or Bamyeh are the same words for Persian: (باميه). Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Breweries

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

Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. This user has also created articles about other non-notable Cambodia companies in which this firm has invesed (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nautisco Seafood) User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is that it was bought). To put the size of the company in perspective, the company was founded in 2009 with $2 million of startup capital |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a microbrewery. No sources that read like they are truly independent. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bare reference to the name only in a NY Times article which merely mentions that the brewery is new. Thus, not enough time to become notable is another issue with this one. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Article lacks the depth of coverage from multiple secondary sources necessary to establish notability. One feature article from a lifestyle magazine is not sufficient. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G3 (blatant hoax) (Non-admin closure)WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Syke

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

Claims of notability in this article (signed to Universal Records label, CD sales in excess of 50,000) cannot be verified. For one thing, Universal Records no longer exists as an independent label. Also, any band selling 50,000 copies of a single CD would have made more news than this band seems to have. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G3 No hits outside Wikipedia for "No Syke" plus lead singer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy (G3) obvious non-notable/hoax article. --Hojimachong^talk 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Couper

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

Asserts notability but sources are almost nonexistant. Another user tried to nominate it but didn't finish the process, leaving me as the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI who can finish redlinked nominations. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the original nominator, Protector of Wiki, miscapitalized. Their rationale was "Non-notable!! The only source aside from his website is from the publisher. The allegedly "Bibliography" section is not a list of sources, but a list of the subject's books! Also, was previously deleted in 2006 as A7!" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. Lacks reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2030 8th Avenue

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

No third-party sources exist to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks large, but building approval does not guaranty that it will be built and become notable. --Elekhh (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Boxer (Kele album). –MuZemike 23:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything You Wanted

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

Non-notable unreleased single. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Boxer (Kele album), as it fails notability criteria for singles, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Boxer (Kele album). Charting single is notable per WP:NSONG, however, there does not appear to be enough verifiable information to warrant an article separate from the album. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Unisex. –MuZemike 23:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unisex Dress

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

Transwiki to Wiktionary at best. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unisex. As and when we have more content there on unisex clothing and fashion, we can spin this out into a separate topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Colonel Warden. I wouldn't really mind having an article on unisex fashion (which we don't), but there's no deadline, and this is just a dictionary def. Claritas § 07:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unisex. It can later expanded, if reliable sources can be added. At the moment it is just a dictionary definition. (Didn't know there was an article about unisex, thus a redirect is the better solution.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three Headed Monster

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

No hits online for "Three Headed Monster" + "Nicktoons." Not notable in any way. Tagged for cleanup since 2007. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There was a block called "Three Headed Monster", I remember seeing it, but it doesn't make it notable. The article is purely original research and unsourced. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:OR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, non-notable television block. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumbing of America

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

Here we seem to have somebody plugging their own website/blog. There is just enough claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion if feeling generous. It has interviewed famous people but notability is not inherited in that way. The guy who runs it was also on local radio, once. It was in a local competition, but it didn't win. It gets the most passing of mentions in Spin. I am not seeing any RS other coverage when Googling although the fact that other, more notable, things use the same name/phrase makes it hard to search. In short, almost certainly not notable. DanielRigal (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: single reference to a cursory mention in a magazine website (the name of the website is mentioned and nothing else, in a single-sentence description of a video). A google search only seems to yield the website itself, or other media which contain the phrase "The Dumbing of America" but do not appear to refer to the website. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion are much stronger and more policy-grounded than the reasons for retention given. –MuZemike 23:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McCollum

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

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

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

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

Although I own the Antares trilogy, he's not really notable nor are any of his works. I could only find a short paragraph in a reliable source about the author, the rest is self-published or unreliable. Subject does not meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating his novel which also suffers from a lack of notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Too bad, the Sun Devils helped UCLA get into the Rose Bowl back in the 80s.Lionel (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Michael's page should be kept, not only because I think his Gibraltar series is great Sci Fi and worth note, but also because I think his business model is interesting. He sells easily copyable PDFs directly to consumers who can choose, rightly or wrongly, to distribute the digital content immediately, and widely. I think his trail-blazing methods of selling his wares is of potentially more note than his literature, and this alone should justify his existence on Wikipedia.--Coolth (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting business model (though not unique to him, I've seen plenty who have similar no-DRM policies). Do you have any reliable sources discussing his business model? If there are it could help save this article, but as it stands he doesn't seem notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep there appears to be an interview in a print magazine [6], was on a fairly obscure best-seller list [7] and [8] might be a RS review. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Michael's page should be kept, his books are my favorite science fictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montymo (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Montymo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines on several counts. Amazon does not directly sell his books - McCollum sells them on there through his own store, and the publisher is "Scifi Arizona" which is his website, indicating that his works are self-published. As for McCollum's business model, his FAQ clearly states that there are copyright notices on the works he sells, and he also has short stories that are free. They are two distinct categories, and his copyright is asserted. Therefore, unauthorized copying still renders one liable for copyright violation, and has nothing to do with the volition of the reader. This is not at all a unique business model; he just chooses not to use proprietary software as a method to enforce his copyright claims, though he encourages reporting of unauthorized copies, and has indeed copyrighted the works. MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's selling books online for as long as Amazon.com exists. That should mean something, right? And he has claimed in 1996 that $1M worth of his books were sold in bookstores before. That he is his own publisher should by no means be held against him, right? It's hard to find good Sci-Fi in bookstores, so I'm sure am happy to have found his site. Oh and you can read his books on Kindle, does that make them more real? It's 2010 guys, it doesn't have to be on paper to be notable, right? Inkredibl (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Inkredibl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Coolth (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a reliable source which says that he's significant because he's been selling books online for as long as Amazon has existed, then it doesn't really mean much. The authors claims are not WP:reliable secondary sources. He doesn't have to be on paper to be notable, he does, however, have to have some secondary coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanadama Pearls

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

Wikipedia is an area where neutral information is placed about a subject. The article for Hanadama is biased and directs end users to a website of a seller of pearls who is trying to privately brand pearls under a hanadama label fooling consumers in thinking that the pearls come from one sole authority in Japan that grades pearls when in reality, there are dozens and dozens of private companies that place a hanadama label on a wide range of pearls reflecting a wide range of qualities. Hanadama is not an official grade. Please see below:

Hanadama is a Japanese word that refers to "flower pearls". The Mikimoto pearl company that sells pearls sometimes uses the term to describe their pearls. In fact, it is Mikimoto's use of the term Hanadama that made it popular in the jewelry industry as it relates to pearls. There are many privately operated appraisal companies that place labels on their appraisal paperwork with the word Hanadama. However, these companies are not affiliated with Mikimoto. Hanadama is not an official grading system. The Gemological Institute of America does offer a grading system for pearls. In fact, from their website it says "Over the past 100 years, discoveries in pearl culturing have revolutionized the industry, all but completely replacing natural pearls with cultured pearls. By the end of the 20th century, several types of cultured pearls were being produced in an overwhelming variety of colors, shapes, and sizes. In response, GIA sought to create a standard for pearl grading and terminology—much as it had with diamonds in the 1950s. Its pearl-grading system, launched in 1998, was based on GIA's 7 Pearl Value Factors™: size, shape, color, luster, surface quality, nacre quality, and matching." The very best surface grade for a Hanadama necklace is "very slightly imperfect". Therefore the "Hanadama" label assigned by The Pearl Science Lab is one label of many labels from many, many small private company that operates in Japan that each appraise Hanadama pearls.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearleducation (talk • contribs)

Not only does this contradict what is written on the Mikimoto website (http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html) "...hanadama, or 'flower pearls', which denotes the highest quality pearls.", it also contradicts what you posted on your own website (http://web.archive.org/web/20060207012322/www.americanpearl.com/collectionselection.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.150.82 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The grading system appears non-notable. There is a singular lack of sources on GBooks or by general searching that explain the system that do not appear promotional. I find it significant that a book such as Matlins, Antoinette L. (2002), The Pearl Book: The Definitive Buying Guide; How to Select, Buy, Care for & Enjoy Pearls (3 ed.), Gemstone Press, ISBN 9780943763354 makes no mention of this system but does explain the generally used system. It should be noted that the article Pearl is lacking in any such explanation of grading. At the time of expressing my opinion this AFD was incorrectly raised, I have no issue with it being removed or re-structured as appropriate. Fæ (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it is non-notable. The term is, however, an important one in the pearl industry. A much more thorough book such as Strack, Elisabeth (2006), Pearls (6 ed.), Ruhle-Diebner-Verlag describes the terms and its usage in detail on pages 362-364. JPShepherd (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was ambiguous. I am neutral on whether or not the article should be deleted. I think the term is important, but the way it is just floating out there without any real connection to another article doesn't make sense. It does seem more sensible to incorporate it into the Pearl page. JPShepherd (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Pearls after finding perfectly accurate referenced sources that fully comply with Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. See WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:V. The commercial links used as sources have been removed from the article. --Kudpung (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We believe the author of the Hanadama page created this page to redefine the meaning of the word "hanadama". All of the references the author uses for the term Hanadama are linked to a site called pearl-guide.com. Pearl guide is a forum run by an owner of a ring of of 10 or more pearl selling websites (pearlparadise.com, pearlsofjoy.com, the pearloutlet.com, etc...) whose messaging both on pearl-guide.com and the e-commerce sites is intentionally meant to make consumers think that the term "hanadama" is some kind of official term or official grade that designates the finest quality Japanese akoya pearls. Furthermore, the article says that all "hanadama pearls" are evaluated and certified by The Pearl Science Laboratory. This is false and a citation is needed. There are dozens and dozens of private companies in Japan that appraise pearls and place the "hanadama" label on them. In fact, in Japan, the grading of pearls and printing of the "hanadama" label on appraisals is becoming a big problem in the pearl industry as there are a plethora of private companies posing as laboratories issuing these "hanadama" labels on pearl strands. The Pearl Science Laboratory is not a Laboratory. It is a private, for profit company that makes a living on selling pearl appraisals. Unlike the Gemological Institute of America which is non-for profit.

The article also says that it is hard to find "hanadama" pearls in retail stores. This needs a citation as well and is written to lead consumers to the pearl-guide.com where the article links to under references. Mikimoto is the company that popularized the term "hanadama". Please see this link:

http://www.mikimoto.com/uk/about_jewellery/pearls/index.html

Because the retail chain of Mikimoto stores popularized the term "hanadama" to refer to their pearls (i.e, when you go to a Mikimoto store you get their selection which is "hanadama") as it is shown on their website, one must assume that it is not rare to find "hanadama" pearls in retail stores as Mikimoto is the largest seller of pearls in the world.

Furthermore, this article says that "Hanadama pearls typically rate higher in quality than AAA Akoyas." Again, this needs a citation. Mikimoto created the "AAA grade" to identify their highest quality pearl grade offered in their stores. Please see this link on Mikimoto's website:

http://www.mikimotoamerica.com/about_jewelry/pearls/grading_system.html

Therefore, one cannot help but determine that the author of this article is not being neutral and is trying to re-define the meaning of the term "hanadama". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlupdate (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be making what may be a valid point, but could you please clarify who the "We" are that you appear to be part of and what your relationship is to Pearleducation (talk · contribs)? Fæ (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete present spammy article. There is nothing in it worth salvaging, so I oppose a "merge" motion. We need brief information in article Pearl, drawn from neutral reliable sources, about the varying uses of this term (not capitalized) by various vendors. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete The book that Fae linked above [9] states "There is no internationally accepted grading system for pearls. Pearl dealers and jewelry retailers use their own systems". This appears to simply be some marketers term that has no third party coverage and is therefore non-notable promotional term. Active Banana ( bananaphone 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Orange Mike and Active Banana. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have changed my comment from 'Merge' to 'delete' after having reading the later arguments here for deletion which I now support.--Kudpung (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected. Secret ^account 02:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Subway 400 broadcasters

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

Article is bare list of stats, per NOTDIR, NOTSTATS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters. It's not actually a list of broadcasters, it's a list of commentators, which is trivia. A list of broadcasters could be dealt with in the main article in a sentence or two. It's not actually sourced, either (the links needs registration and is a forum anyway) but that's the least of its problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Copyvio from various pages http://www.pinoyexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=404007, http://www.titikpilipino.com/news/?aid=1223 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora (rock band)

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

No indication of notability: reads like they may be big (and notable) one day but not yet. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Fastily as blatant advertising (G11) (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-897

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

Promotional article for a non-notable product. ("...it incorporates all its features to a reasonable price, $1050.- at its release in 2001, it is a great marketing success.") The company that makes this product does not even have its own article, so there is nowhere to merge this article per WP:PRODUCT. Per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a sales catalog, nor is it a complete exposition of all possible details. SnottyWong ^squeal 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Jennison Noice

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

Does not even come close to meeting the notability requirements for performers. Acting career consists of 15 bit parts in TV shows or movies; the "theatre", directing, and writing credits are unreferenced, and the "network marketing" is for a dietary supplement sold through a multi-level marketing platform. Also a likely CoI issue, because the creator of the article (and the primary contributor" is a SPA whose edits consist of this article, adding a link to this article on November 14, and an effusively promotional edit to the primary spokesman for the dietary supplement. Horologium (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment The link to network marketing and promotional tone have been addressed with regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a very nice job rewriting the article, but the fundamental notability issue remains. Of the films he's appeared in, only two of them are films released by major studios (Virtuosity and Phoenix), and he is billed 14th and 31st, respectively, in those two films. Of the three remaining films, one was a direct-to-video release (Head of the Family), one has a box-office gross of less than $1600 (yes, one thousand six hundred dollars; Running Time), and the third appears to have made the rounds of indie film festivals before video release (Echos [sic] of Enlightenment). There's not enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, no matter how well you frame his oeuvre. And the article is totally unreferenced; there's an external link to IMDB, but not any references. As for the stage work, there doesn't appear to be any verification of that anywhere. The "director" and "writer" credits in the lede are also not supported by anything. The four different names and promotion on networking sites make a Google count even dodgier than normal, but there are a total of 20,495 hits for all four variations of his name, not all of which are him (four of the first 20 results for "Gordon Jennison" -wikipedia are for other people). Horologium (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All well made points, and I appreciate the decent WP:BEFORE that you've done. I will offer that IMDB (not a source) has no set criteria for how they display credits order. Sometimes it's alphabetical... sometimes it's appearance order... sometimes it's contractual between actor and productions... sometimes it's completely random. Sometimes it's a mixture of some or all of these methods, as they have no specific guideline for such. I will also offer that "major" studio is not one of our criteria, and WP:ENT is far more often a judgement call than anything else. I much appreciate the courtesy of your response, specially as I did not opine a keep or a delete.... only performing cleanup as able (always good exercize) and offering the possibility of expanded searches based upon the article's AKAs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schmidt strikes again. The performer in question here has no notability whatsoever. I would like to know how Schmidt would justify the inclusion of a Z-grade actor? Eh? Laval (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please restrict comments to the article, not to other editors. Horologium (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical restoration

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

In the 5 years since this article was last nominated for deletion it has not been expanded. I believe this is because the article is not much more than a dictionary entry. Currently restoration has many links for articles that are about specific types of restoration, which is more than adequate. Wizard191 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, Basically, a WP:DICTIONARY case. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless definition of term.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Restoration already has the following entry with redirection to wiktionary: Restoration or refurbishment of vehicles, furniture, appliances, equipment, etc Nageh (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Faux

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

A contested prod. Per note from the prod, "I cannot find any reliable sources about this show, I can find some directory listings but that's it. Fails WP:V and GNG." Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The show did exist, and was released on DvD. Was able to verify those claims (here and here). However, there's nothing to indicate significance about this series. No critical acclaim, no cult following or significant coverage; so fails WP:GNG. Akerans (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided. Only found the EW review when I looked, but since other reviews have been found I believe that satisfies the review criteria. Akerans (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice presentation and powerful external links. It's fanboy but it's well done and should be of interest to WP users. Worthwhile content, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about use content and deletion policy instead? That seems like a much better idea for an AFD discussion. Since we have Michael Neumann stating that "only I know what it stands for", I challenge you to come up with a source for the content describing the "Skull & Chopsticks" logo in this article that is someone other that M. Neumann talking about xyrself. And since the improper source (M. Neumann's WWW site) currently cited for that is the only source cited in this entire article, I further challenge you to come up with any independent reliable source documenting this entire subject, showing that this article is at all verifiable from independent and reliable sources, rather than WWW advertising by apparently the same person who wrote this and a little walled garden of articles surrounding it. It's time to show some independent reliable sources documenting this subject in depth. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are welcome to your opinion and I to mine. Here is the question to ask oneself in all deletion debates: "Is Wikipedia better off or worse off if this cut is made?" There are all sorts of guidelines, mark that well guidelines, for inclusion and arguments based in doctrine are given requisite weight by the closing administrator. If you don't like my logic, that is your right. Make your opposing case and let the chips fall where they may. Carrite (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is definitely better off when people follow content and deletion policy in AFD discussions. Rise to the challenge and cite sources to support your case, or continue thinking that this is a matter of "guidelines" that you can just ignore and watch your case fall apart. I observe in passing that this sort of basic explanation of how to make a proper argument that will hold water and what happens when one doesn't, I more usually find myself giving at AFD to help Wikipedia novices who don't yet understand the project. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- DVDs got a decent review in EW -- http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,448947,00.html. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another review -- http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/feb/09/bruce-campbell-and-kung-faux/--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sufficiently notable. Notability based on reviews requires multiple reviews in reliable sources. I am open to changing my opinion if such sources are found. Yworo (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the spirit expressed by Yworo. MtD (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yworo, and also that WP:ITSINTERESTING is not valid reasoning for keeping an article. This article shows zero notability. We don't decide what's good or bad for Wikipedia - the subjects of articles do that themselves by how notable they are. It's our job to determine ithe NOTABILITY of the subjects. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing the problem finding sources such as Billboard. I see the series compared with MST3K on Google Scholar which seems a significant accolade. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has sources, and the article makes several reasonable claims to notability (notable participants, widely distributed, merchandise by notable company). Robofish (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there are plenty more sources available, though mostly self-published ones, e.g. [10],[11]. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage needs to be in reliable sources, at least one of these is a blog. Active Banana ( bananaphone 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationally broadcast/cablecast television program with, as Sarek of Vulcan points out, nontrivial coverage in major publication/media. It may be a lame knockoff of MST3K, but if we deleted all the articles on lame knockoff TV series we'd remove 90% of the TV coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources exist, although most require payment.[12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because as of right now the article fails WP:N because it only contains self-published sources. If people on this discussion keep saying "sources exist" then why is no one adding them? elektrik SHOOS 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we work on an article when editors like you say that it should be deleted? It is more sensible to wait until this disruptive threat has been waived. In my comment above, I provide a link to a source and more may be readily found by using the search links at the head of the discussion. Editors who simply look at the current version of the article are failing to consider the topic properly. The article is not yet complete and so, per our editing policy, should be left in mainspace for further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfDing articles is neither disruptive nor a threat. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point I'm making is that despite everyone saying that 'sources exist,' none have been added, which leads me to believe they're either insufficient to pass WP:N or completely nonexistent. There's WP:IMPERFECT and then there's egregiously underdeveloped with little hope of improvement, and this article fits into the second category. And in any case, saying the article may eventually be improved and should be kept feels like WP:MERCY. elektrik SHOOS 06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - What, in what SarekOfVulcan, Colonel Warden, or Robofish write above, leads you to believe that they're citing nonexistent sources? When people cite sources at AFD, the correct next step is to review what is cited, not to ignore it for the quite bogus reason that "It's not in the article therefore it's nonexistent.". We're here to collaborate, furthermore. If you want sources cited in a discussion to be in an article, then pull out your editing tool and collaborate with other editors. They did the work of finding them. The least that others can do is fix up and transfer citations. This sharing of the burden is the way that we write collaboratively. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The skoda prize

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

I originally tagged this article as CSD A7, as the subject was only announced yesterday and as such I feel it doesn't yet meet with the notability standards. The first prize has not even been awarded to a recipient yet. Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too soon. Maybe if the first prize is awarded and it too gets covered widely in RS, the award can have an article. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it's evidently a new prize, see this, this, and this. A user brought this article up at the reliable sources noticeboard, if these can be considered reliable sources, I think the article passes the bar (but I'm reserving judgment myself until I can look further at these and other sources.) --Nuujinn (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, maybe worth a brief mention in Škoda Auto. So far it's just another corporate PR pitch concocted by their marketing dept. These come and go unnoticed. Notability takes more than a press release. East of Borschov 08:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heaven & Earth (Phil Wickham album). –MuZemike 23:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven & Earth (song)

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

Non-notable song. Existing article on the album which contains this song is more than sufficient. Fails WP:NSONG. SnottyWong ^chatter 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album, consistent with WP:NSONG. Don't see why deletion is in any way preferable to redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On 2nd thought, I can see some reason why deletion could be viewed as preferable to redirect, but I don't think it is adequate to support deletion over redirect. Some editors have an aversion to redirects with a parenthetical, especially when the song has the same name as the album. But the parenthetical "(song)" is simple enough that many readers experienced with Wikipedia conventions will likely use it, and the album name is not simply Heaven and Earth. Rlendog (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is a form of deletion. Basically, it means we're going to delete all of the content of the article and redirect it to the main article. SnottyWong ^talk 23:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence to support notability based on criteria at WP:NSONG. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the disambiguation page, Heaven and Earth, as there are multiple songs with this title. --Geniac (talk) 23:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think the consensus is clearly delete. As a suggestion, it might be possible to supplement the article on Bagrationi dynasty with one of the family in its post-dynastic period (i.e. 19th ,20th & 21st century) family, but not individual members unless there is significant actual individual notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H.S.H. Princess Karina Bagration-Moukhransky

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

Non-encyclopedic article full of POV, personal opinion, and external links that do little to prove notability. Seems more like a resume than anything else. Jmlk 1 7 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very little verifiable information here, and little evidence of coverage by reliable sources, despite rather extravagant claims in the article. A google search in Russian also shows almost nothing of relevance[13]. Does not pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article subject might, and I do mean maybe, be notable, but the article in its current state is virtually beyond repair, and there is no evidence presented establishing notability. Unless it gets thoroughly rewritten and sourced it needs to go. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear OldManNeptune, thank you for your oppinion.Could you please help a bit to fix the article?We also will be working on it more today to meet high standards of Wikipedia.Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.200 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, with minor changes. The article is useful. Both Ukraine and Russia are flooded by fancy chivalry orders and nobility; it is very difficult to understand “who is who”. For notability visit the official site of Romanov family in exile. It’s in Russian and the lineage of Princess is there. http://geroldia.ru/?lang=rus&id=20 Sergeydancer (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The link you provided is to a directory listing of people with claims to titles of nobility. There is about half a sentence mention there of the subject of this article, as the wife of knyaz Dmitry Bagration-Mukhransky. The fact that she acquired by marriage the title of knyaginya, into one of hundreds of families of old Russian nobility, does not, in and of itself, make her notable. Russia abolished monarchy and titles of nobility almost a hundred years ago and having married a descendant of one of the numerous families of old Russian nobility is not noteworthy. The basic standard of notability on Wikipedia is to have received significant specific coverage by independent published reliable sources - see WP:BIO. There is little to show that such coverage is available here. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A GoogleNews search[14] returns a single hit, with only a brief mention of the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it..Bagration is actually the Royal House of Georgia, which does not make neither Dimitry. Every lady who married a royal prince(no matter if the house is ruling or not)is already special due to her position.Apparently Karina Bagration(which singles her out and which is clearly seen from the article)managed to do a lot of notable things in her life by herself.In Ukraine with the population of 45,888,000 she is the one like that. (Lys Flower) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.54.105 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy in Georgia ceased to exist 200 years ago, when Georgia was absorbed into the Russian Empire, at which point Georgian nobility was incorporated into Russian nobility. According to the link provided by Sergeydancer above, Karina's husband Dmitry claims the title of knyaz because he is a distant descendant of the younger brother of Georgian king Vakhtang V who ruled eastern Georgia as a Persian vassal in mid 1600s. That may be of some interest to genealogy enthusisasts but it does not make Dmitry notable in the sense defined by Wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:BIO, and it certainly does not make his wife Karina notable either. Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But don't genealogy enthusisasts use Wikipedia Geneaology is a science like any other,it needs accuracy and reliable source of information.In this article? I found a lot of useful links for my personal research.I still find it opposes strongly to a huge number of impostors in Russia and Ukraine with their fake sites and investitures.True, Bagrations were once Kings of Georgia, so it is open to fruitless debate as to how "equal" or "unequal" they are to Romanovs.But that's not the point.What you should take to account is that" Bagration" name a long time ago grew a part of mass culture in Russia itself .Tobacconists "Bargration", restaurants,spirits, computer games, comics, business centers,-you name it.So everything which happens in real Bagration family is interesting and should correspond to WP:BIO(Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" although not irrelevant is secondary). Sergeydancer (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without proper referencing, this is just so much rhubarb. Whether she is what is claimed or no, without evidence the article cannot stand on Wikipedia under WP:BLP. No matter how notable or otherwise, this referencing is essential. Peridon (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Springer

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

Person is a recent PhD graduate (2009) in Geography and merely a non-tenured Assistant Professor. He does not meet any of the notable academic guidelines. He is not an editor of any journals, does not hold any positions of note and has made no contributions to the wider discipline of Geography. This article must be deleted. --Waitingforever123 (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a preposterous entry and a blatant and shameless abuse of wikipedia. Since when is wikipedia used as a platform for the self glorificaition of an entry level academic? --Maling888 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)--Maling888 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, I find the way this AfD was started quite distracting. Note that both accounts commentating on this article apparently were only registered to start this AfD, probably by the same person. I've left the notability tag for some time as a sign of AGF, yet had announced my intention to start this AfD, and would have done so today or tomorrow. I'm in no connection whatsoever with these accounts. Second, however, Simon Springer actually fails WP:PROF by quite a margin. And it's obvious this is an autobiographical article. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This AfD was incomplete - it was not listed in the AfD log by the nominator. I have added this AfD to the August 19 log, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 19. Nsk92 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the there are problems with this nomination - it is indeed most likely that User:Waitingforever123 and User:Maling888 are the same person. Both are SPA accounts whose only contributions are in relation to this AfD. However, on the merits, Axolotl Nr.733 is correct. The subject is a junior academic, PhD 2009, a recently appointed Assisant Professor, and nothing in the record indicates satisfying WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Garry's Mod. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepunch Studios

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

Fails WP:CORP as there lacks any form of significant coverage of the company. Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note : forgot to check if it had been deleted before, it has so may be it is CSD G4. Codf1977 (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy as the current version is substantially different from that which was deleted. As yet I'm undecided on the AfD, but if it does end in deletion a redirect to Garry's Mod seems appropriate. the wub "?!" 16:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gained some notability inside a large GMod community. Should be enough to keep. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the community well, but if notability hasn't been established in the mainstream world then they fail the general notability guideline. --Teancum (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.--intelati 02:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a rationale for keeping the article. Simply saying KEEP does not explain why it fits into Wikipedia policies. --Teancum (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - the notability of GMod does not mean automatic notability for the parent company per WP:NOTINHERITED. No reliable sources with significant coverage of this company. (see search) Mod is notable, company is not. --Teancum (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect. I suppose it's a plausible search term. --Teancum (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP, not notable in itself. Delete + create as redirect to GMod. Jarkeld (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details to Garry's Mod, redirect there. Possibly other products in future so rather see the history kept, but no need for the article now.--MASEM (t) 12:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry's Mod although the mod it creates is notable, the company does not meet WP:CORP. Redirect to GMod Nomader ^(Talk) 13:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry's Mod - The article doesn't establish significant coverage in third party sources, and I couldn't find any sources when I searched. —Ost (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry's Mod - Is not notable enough for significant mention, much less its own article. Mamyles (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This business probably is has borderline notability, though more for its sports sponsorships than its actual operations; without that. The article now actually contains an English language explanation of their business, and I've edited or simply removed some of the more over the top POV-pushing or meaningless language from the article body. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xchanging

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

Contested proposed deletion. Regardless of whether this business is notable or not, this article is unambiguous advertising. It is also patent nonsense. We're told that this is a business processing company and that it operates a global production model, which is all very nice, but we're still left wondering what its 8000 employees do for a living. We'd be better off not pretending to have an article about this business than having this pretending to be an article. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Overall the article is not written like an advertisement. The company is listed publicly in London and is in the FTSE250, which convinces me that it meets WP:NOTE. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is not the real problem here; but even if this were a notable business, as it might be, it still leaves me mostly clueless as to what they make or do. And it is pretty blatant advertising. Text like this, vaguely promising vague advantage while carefully steering clear of the sort of representation that might constitute an offer binding in law, does not belong in an encyclopedia: It is a distinctive mode of engagement that can create new value for both client and service provider. The Enterprise Partnership model engenders a different set of motivations and behaviours than a simple fee-for-service arrangement, and is a unique approach to handling large and complex business processes that re-shifts the emphasis back towards the notion of partnership. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tried to back up wiki with referencing and links to articles. How else could the page be improved? Any suggestions welcome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.181.230 (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What it really needs is a more concrete, plain English explanation of what it does. I gather this is an outsourcing business to handle administrative tasks? Something more concrete than "business processing". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have added a section from the Xchanging Annual Report, which seems to explain how they make money! Too much Jargon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.181.230 (talk) 08:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon, I can deal with. I've edited or simply removed some of the more floridly POV language to my own satisfaction. I am withdrawing this nomination for the time being. The issue I had with the first version was, not only the obvious advertising in it, but it didn't really give much of an opening to edit it, and any attempt to figure out what the business did on my part would have been guesswork. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmere.com

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

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

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

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

This article has previously been deleted via a WP:SPA ridden AFD. Subsequently it was re-created and speedily deleted as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." The WP:SPA editor who re-created it took the article to WP:DRV (discussion here) and it was restored to allow AFD discussion (again). As this is was essentially the same article with a few additional sources, I am sending it back to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete and salt. Unambiguous advertising: Jasmere’s premise is that it connects upscale, eco-conscious merchandise with upscale, value-conscious shoppers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is fine (meets WP:N), it isn't all that hard to remove the promo text. It's still spammy but I've cleaned up the worst parts. Hobit (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to breadth and depth of sources. Arguably promotional but not "exclusively promotional". There are 27 sources on this page, all from credible 3’rd parties (no blogs, though one source was put up a few minutes ago to a company website to help clean up the article). 13 of the 27 sources are prominent and substantial mentions (several minute long stories) of Jasmere.com in local TV news segments across the country (several of the sources are duplicates and not unique, however). A few of the sources have just a sentence or paragraph about Jasmere.com, but those are in substantial publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and Real Simple magazine. Between the breadth of coverage as well as the depth in numerous sources, I feel this page meets the notability guidelines. While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is not overtly promotional. And I do believe there are negatives of Jasmere.com, as there is a section dealing with shopping addiction. I believe this page should stay up while editors can spend some more time cleaning up the page as well as adding additional, credible sources. Thanks. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Spam... not worth the time and effort Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I find myself in agreement with Hobit. While the article is slightly spammy, its nothing that can't be fixed with editing, and the breadth of coverage this site has received allows it to meet notability guidelines. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt spam from a nonnotable website that hasn't been covered in depth by reliable soruces, nor has the site made an impact anywhere in its field. Them From Space 07:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "references"/news sources are likely from company news releases - also promotional in nature, and a degrading component of television news and other media. I also think Groupon should be deleted. If these sites were allowed to promote themselves on Wikipedia, then perhaps they should do so in sections in the One deal a day article.Cleshne (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a correct statement. I searched Business Wire as well as other press release sites and found three total, all done within the first week of when the company started in late 2009. All of the sources in this article are from 2010, including several in May through July. Press releases are typically picked up in the first few days (or perhaps weeks) after distribution. These sources appear to be stories developed by research from the journalists as well as interviews and not from company releases. Jbernfeld (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point I don't see how this article can be viewed as overly promotional, nor do I see how the coverage doesn't meet WP:N. It seems to have non-trivial coverage from a rather large number of sources. Finally, that coverage doesn't look like a press release or "faux" coverage. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Toddst1 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hankin

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

Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never appeared in a fully-professional competition. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond the odd WP:NTEMP stuff having been mentioned in a few minor news items. --Jimbo^[online] 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factor X (Ailyn album)

AfDs for this article:

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

"totally fanmade", fails WP:NALBUMS, not on website - previous AFD closed because of no participation Hekerui (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete last afd shouldn't have been closed as it was only open for a week; should've been relisted a second time instead. Fails WP:NALBUMS and appears to be a fanmix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. It's a selfreleased album. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PEERNET Reports

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

Contested prod. Article is about a software product with no reliable sources supporting it. I cannot find anything beyond press releases and marketing blurbs. TN X Man 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, Not notable Codf1977 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. What is this, software for making labels. that's putting on airs? Vague, promotional, unencyclopedic in style, it's a bit hard to figure out what this does: an ad-hoc reporting application and label design software by Peernet, Inc. It can be used as a stand-alone desktop software product or can be embedded as a component in enterprise software systems. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Andrews (CEO Xchanging)

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

Not notable for any reason other than being CEO of a company. No other public roles. Given this and the clear COI / autobiographical way the article was started I can't seen any reason to keep it. Biker Biker (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Probably should have been speedily deleted as a biography of a living person with inadequate sourcing. I have also proposed Xchanging for deletion on the grounds of advertising, uninformativeness, and unreadability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharik Currimbhoy

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

There is nothing to show this individual is notable. Sources given do not seem to cover the core assertions of the article - particularly the bit about being "the great grandson of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim, the only Muslim baronet.[citation needed]" and the grandson of Princess Shahnaz Husain"

IP keeps removing prod without explanation. Created by User:Sharikcurrimbhoy Scott Mac 14:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable individual. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce and Pepper Wayne Gacy's Home Movies

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines for notability:

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

This film has been shown as recently as this year, 2010, in Berlin, Germany, New York City, NY, USA, and Toronto, Ontario, Canada, approximately twenty years after it was first released. Moreover, it is routinely screened in museums and art galleries and at film festivals around the world. Therefore, according to WP guidelines, it meets the criteria for notability. Keep. Intheshadows (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see nothing in the article that confirms any recent screenings. If you note the beginning of the statement in WP:NOTFILM indicates the assertion must be supported by reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you will kindly look at the third reference, it is a programme for a screening of the film by The 8 Fest in conjunction with Pleasure Dome in Toronto, Canada in January, 2010. I will add other references for the other cities as well. Intheshadows (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see, under the "External links" section, the entry for the Queensland Museum in Australia, which screened the film as part of the series "Cinema In Revolt" which ran from December 2007 till February 2008. Intheshadows (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, please also see reference 5 containing information about the July 2010 screening of the film in Berlin, Germany. Intheshadows (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per having screened at festivals more than five years after original release. Sources now in the article are compelling. Kudos to User:Intheshadows. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that short films aren't inherently notable in the sense that we should necessarily have an article about each and every one, it's also true that short films aren't inherently non-notable in the sense that we should never have articles about them. As with so many other topics, the decisive factor is the quality of sources available about the film; the sources here do seem to pass muster, so keep. Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short films are no different from feature films in terms of notability (i.e. they can be as notable as feature films or not notable at all), and while this one appears to be just as senseless and mediocre as any other short film (especially considering that it is by LaBruce, ugh), it has sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. Considering that LaBruce is (very unfortunately) considered a notable Canadian filmmaker, anything he has done will have plenty of press coverage. I wish it weren't so, but such is life. Laval (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that the screening of the film in Queensland, Australia, as part of the series "Cinema In Revolt", which ran from December 2007 till February 2008 also meets this guideline for notability:

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

Intheshadows (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the cited sources showing that the film has continued to be screened in festival and retrospective programs; the notability criteria are satisfied. --Larrybob (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vampires Suck. –MuZemike 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Proske

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

Fails WP:ENT. One role in one film. We do not have sufficient coverage to write a reasonably detailed article. We know she was born circa 1987, went to college and had one movie role. That's it. Permenant stub. Prod removed without comment, but see talk. SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Vampires Suck as article fails notability criteria for actors and it is just simply too soon. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vampires Suck per WP:TOOSOON and without prejudice toward recreation if/when her career grows a bit. Quite nice that she is getting some decent coverage in reliable sources... but as it is for her only film role, currently it is a WP:BLP1E. And yes, it may be a stub now, but to call it "permanent" is to presume that the future will not happen. But yes... it cannot grow at the moment... so the redirect will in the meanwhile send readers to the one place where this person has sourcable context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vampires Suck - not yet indepedently notable. An actor doesn't usually become notable after one film unless it's a hugely significant role/performance. Robofish (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins Mental Notes

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

Non-notable a capalla group at a university. GrapedApe (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable college group. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopsfa

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

Non-notable student organization with just 1 local chapter. No coverage in outside sources. GrapedApe (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided or found. And that picture... wow. Just wow. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davood Azad

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

Delete - no references proving he is notable. No references have been added in the 5 years since this article was created. If he was that prominent, this article should be bigger by now. Beeshoney (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced BLP. No independent coverage provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP. BLPs are required to have at least one reference. Additionally, the subject's name is Davod Azad, rather than Davood Azad. Search for both names was futile. If a source can be added from his native language I will be happy to recommend that the article be kept. Cindamuse (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:music VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's several transcription of his name, please check this. I add some references to the article.Farhikht (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Farhikht. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Together

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

Not notable in itself. Should only be mentioned in Vladimir Putin article. Northernhenge (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets point 2 of WP:MUSIC - i.e. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 06:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in itself. Only one song by this band was more or less known. DonaldDuck (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Russia doesn't seem to have an official singles chart, so I don't know how this would pass WP:MUSIC #2.~~ Nothing else gets them past WP:MUSIC either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's the Russian Airplay Chart and the Russian Digital Singles Chart; do they count? ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 02:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way, just saying "they had a song that was a hit" isn't enough. It could've been a "hit" in the land of weasel-words even if it didn't touch the charts. (ETA: Russian Airplay Chart looks fishy so I AFD'ed it.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the BBC article shows that it has "has made the play lists of leading radio stations in Russia", it can't have been a hit - the single was not available for sale according to the same article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Their song topped the Russian music charts in 2002. I've added the National Geographic Music News link. Regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These sources seem to mention both massive air time and topping charts - [15] Ezhuks (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of Minimally Invasive Neurological Therapeutic procedures (SMINTP)

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

No evidence other than this article that this group or its related "Internet Journal of Intervention Medicine" actually exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction The journal apparently does exist, [http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_interventional_medicine.html here]. However, it is an internet only journal, part of http://www.ispub.com/, and has not yet published any content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 196.218.222.122 (talk · contribs) had taken the liberty to edit my initial comments above. I have reverted my comments to their original, and copied the IP's comment below:

there is evidence that this group is really exist via its related "Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine" . also its website http://neuro-consult.webs.com/

I don't believe that any group of notability would build its website at the self-hosting Webs.com. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. No independent evidence provided. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect The author has created this article before as Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine. It was deleted and recreated several times (once for copyvio, once for blatant advert, once for non-notable). The author then went and created this article which was deleted due to a copyvio, and then recreated again this time. It's currently tagged for speedy for a copyvio, as the text was pretty much a copy/paste job from the mission statement page here. --23 Benson (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I have declined the copyvio speedy, as I do not think the words are close enough to the source cited, which is actually the mission statement of a different society, SVIN (though they may have been adapted from there). JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. No independent sources cited, and I don't find any. This Society and its Journal are evidently too new to be notable yet, though they may beome so. The author Ossamaym (talk · contribs) is presumably Ossama Mansour, the President of the society. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect, and protect the other deleted articles. A persistent attempt to introduce unacceptable articles, despite advice. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nautisco Seafood

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

Article regarding non-notable company in Cambodia with significant WP:ADVERT issues. The article was created by user with WP:COI as there is a strong connection with the company's pricipal investor in the company. User may also have a WP:SOCK issue (See: (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton) The article's brief references are all puff pieces by small local publications hosted on the investment firm's website. Searches show limited reason to believe this is a notable company (the only event of note for the company is that it was bought) |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. They're exporting food from Cambodia? That ain't right. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CamGSM and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Breweries as other articles created for investments of this firm. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJ98 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence

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

Intricate summary of opening title sequence from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Main article already contains a section discussing the opening sequence with a sufficient level of detail.

The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence is also mostly unsourced. The references in the article relate to very little of the actual content, instead discussing a bystander who appeared in a freeze-frame in the opening, the unveiling of a statue of Moore in Minneapolis, and a table in a restaurant appearing in the sequence for a second or two. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment—The opening title sequence of this television program does not meet notability guidelines on a level that it should be a stand-alone article, and the article contains little encyclopedic info that could be merged into The Mary Tyler Moore Show#Opening title sequence. The first page of a Google search returns only links to video/fan sites and places like www.sitcomsonline.com. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— The Simpsons opening sequence is no more notable than Mary Tyler Moore's. Do you believe it should be proposed for deletion as well? Njsustain (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I don't have a problem with the content of the article and for some reason (I hated this show) this is a very famous television item. It is often referenced and mentioned - there are a huge number of hits. The real question I have is whether this is better suited to be merged into the main Mary Tyler Moore Show. I would ask the nominating editor on to be more specific on what basis he/she is proposing deletion? I think this article needs further referencing but that is not a basis for deleting the article. I would support keeping although I could get behind a thoughtful merge of the article back into the main article. My only concern would be an WP:UNDUE issue after the merge. There are already subsidiary articles from the main Mary Tyler Moore Show and I have no issue with this being another such subsidiary article (provided it is cleaned up a little and referenced better). |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article documents fairly well (with too much fannish detail) the relative notability of this shows opening sequence. The song could probably have its own article, but at least adds notability to the sequence. The statue is a clue: its not just a statue of Moore, its a statue of what she does in the sequence. This article was broken away from the main article after some reasonable discussion on it having undue weight there. It needs better sourcing, and i am fine with the more trivial content being removed after discussion. full disclosure: as a recovering tv addict, I have this sequence and song burned into my memory for all time. i suspect some tens of millions do as well, hence the notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sottolacqua's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if "notability is the issue I would suggest you look at a small sampling of references to the hat toss I picked out in about 5 seconds just looking on the NYT on the hat toss part of the opening credits: [16], [17], [18] [19], [20], [21]. The real question is what content would you propose to delete from the article and how would you propose to re-merge this with the main Mary Tyler Moore Show Article. I think this is the perfect set up of a more detailed article on a subsection of the main article about the show|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an extremely notable opening, well recognized, often copied, and discussed in secondary sources. There is a bronze statue at the location of the end of the opening for goodness sake. The theme song has been covered many times and was released as a single. It was taking up quite a bit of space in the MTM Show article and it is totally appropriate to put this verifiable and notable information into its own article. If there is an issue with sources they should be requested--this is a notable topic and lack of sources is not a valid reason to consider deletion, only a reason to request references.Njsustain (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well done article about a well established part of American popular culture. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: No matter what it does need to be kept (even if it is merged with the parent article) but it needs LOTS of sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to point out to those that !voted merge, this article was split from the main article, as per the edit summary of the first edit. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- interesting level of detail that would unbalance the main article if it were returned there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sarek and Mercurywoodrose. Iconic TV sequence, often discussed on in contemporaneous commentary, sometimes in sociopolitical writing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How will this article make it on its own? It's an appropriate topic for a spinoff article: a highly influential sequence, decently sourced, too long to be re-incorporated into the main article. Therefore, in my opinion: It's gonna make it after all. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Disclaimer: I am the creator of the article, which consists mostly of content split out of the main show article.) As said a few times already, the reason for having a separate article is to avoid undue weight of the opening sequence discussion in the main show article. While some unreferenced, fannish content could be removed from the opening sequence content, I think that the amount remaining would still constitute undue weight if put back. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no earthshaking significance to an opening sequence to a TV show, but this one has inspired a statue that was documented in the NY Times...[22] --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mercurywoodrose. The article is well-referenced, keeps to NPOV, and is certainly too long to be included in the main article. Besides, it is an iconic TV moment (I remember it vividly, though I saw it 30 years ago). Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Zoufonoun

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

No in-line citations. Doesn't conform to BLP or Verifiability guidlines. Beeshoney (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although no inline citations are provided, there are third-party, independent reliable sources linked to in the article and the notability of the subject is not in question. I doubt there is any contentious material from a BLP point of view, but if there is I would suggest the nominator identify it for cleanup rather than rushing to deletion. Thparkth (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (ec) a notable musician, the article needs work, but it is expandable/verifiable, see [23] [24]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - certainly a candidate for a good clean but pretty well established notability with a couple of sources to back it up. Probably needs cutting back --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Thparkth and others. --John (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Speedy Keep per all above. WP:POINTY nomination made despite substantial evidence of notability and sourceabiity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silvercrest SL65

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no indication given (or found on an online search) to show that this product is notable. As there is no Silvercrest article to redirect, deletion is the only alternative. The last AfD was in December 2006 and closed as no consensus. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added mention of Silvercrest in the Lidl article and created a redirect to Lidl from Silvercrest. However, this product is not notable, and I think it unlikely that this is a likely search term - unless anyone thinks that all of Silvercrest's 35+ products need articles/redirects? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Correct me if I'm wrong but this is just a Chinese radio decoder. Couldn't they write an article on Audionote Ongaku instead? East of Borschov 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly lacking in notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in the previous AfD, someone suggested rewriting and renaming the article to Silvercrest. In other words, they wanted to merge the article with a non-existing article. The non-existence of Silvercrest suggests there isn't enough verifiable information for an article, or that the subject lacks notability (or both). If someone can create a viable Silvercrest article, then we can talk about merging. Not before. --N Y Kevin @856, i.e. 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have contacted all the editors who were in involved in the previous AfD - with the exception of the closing admin and an IP editor - with the message "As you took part in the AfD in 2006, you might be interested in knowing that a new AfD has been opened. This message is being sent to all the editors who participated in that AfD, whether they supported deletion, opposed it, or had other options." -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as noted in the last AfD this could be redirected to the uber-parent company of Lidl. Otherwise, delete, as the article stands it is very non-notable. Skier Dude (talk 02:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this article is about a particular product which is manufactured by Silvercrest, I think that this article should be deleted. However, I have added mention of Silvercrest to the Lidl article, and created redirects from Silvercrest. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Tree (2010 film). Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgana Davies

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

This article is about a child actor that does not establish notability. According to IMDB, she has appeared in two films. The article claim she plays the lead role in The Tree, however IMDB shows Charlotte Gainsbourg and Marton Csokas top billed, and then the rest of the cast is listed alphabetically. She gets lots of mentiosn as part of the cast of "The Tree", but there is no substantial coverage about her to establish notability, nor are two roles sufficient to establish her under WP:ENTERTAINER. Whpq (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the 2-sentence stub to The Tree (2010 film) per WP:TOOSOON. Her career (2 projects) is far too short, and one singular lead role in the one notable project can be seen as a BLP1E. The film article is the only place where she has whatever notability as can be sourced for her one notable role. I do appreciate that such WP:RS as The Australian would write things such as "...the film is stolen by eight-year-old Morgana Davies, who gives an astonishing performance.",[25] as it shows she may have a bright future... but even good reviews for only one project is still coverage for ONE project. Let her career grow and welcome her back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale The article is a BLP. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has a pretty important role in The Tree Terveetkadet (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How does that fulfil any of the inclusion criteria? -- Whpq (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not yet appear to meet notability criteria for actors. So far there appears to only be the one key role. Could be userfied rather than deleted until her career takes off. Turgan ^Talk 12:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Challenger

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

Accomplishments as a singer/songwriter seem rather thin. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mention in the sources provided 2 of wich are dead links fails wp:music. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Dragonflysixtyseven. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Badass (disambiguation)

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

Inappropriate DAB page. While funny, doesn't meet WP:MOSDAB requirements, among others. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete except for Chuck Norris, who is far too badass to remove. There's a Badass (book), but that looks like it might be a candidate for Afd itself. (At least the creator included Wikipedia.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not funny. --Blitzer Van Susterwolf (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Joke page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Synagogues in switzerland

The result was Withdrawn - Article considerably different from the article that was nominated Codf1977 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~IP Contested PROD - WP is not a directory Codf1977 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)~~ Article considerably difrent from the article that was nominated so withdrawing nomination, since no other delete !votes doing a NAC. Codf1977 (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify. Category:Synagogues in Switzerland has only one article in it. I presume that there's more than one notable synagogue in the country (notable as either an organization or a landmark building), but: no articles - no list in main space. Nothing to import into History of the Jews in Switzerland too. East of Borschov 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reformat so as not to read like a phone book. Lists of buildings do not require notability for each entry as long as the scope of the list is manageable, see WP:LSC. There are also likely to be several notable synagogues on that list; the Swiss Inventory of Cultural Property of National and Regional Significance contains several synagogues. Sandstein 11:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Chesdovi was faster than me. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redo as per others. JFW | T@lk 14:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per User:Sandstein. sometimes a speedy keep is appropriate, to save the time we all waste on AFD's by users who apparently misunderstood the standard approach to a particular topic, like articles listing buildings in a certain category.AMuseo (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per short list selection criteria (History of the Jews in Switzerland says 38 synagogues in 2009). WP:LSC: "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources." This list will be far less than 32k and of interest to readers on its own and as an aid to navigation for the several independently notable synagogue articles that are likely to be developed. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim to a stub of one The criteria for keeping small complete lists also says we need reliable sources. this article has none. the article where the 38 is cited doesnt cite a source. The tags saying this article doesnt have sources was removed, when the PROD was removed. At what point do we start asking that an article show some sources for its content? the one synagoge that is on WP as located in switzerland isnt on this list yet. i say add this synagogue, remove all the others, then add the others back when citations are found, or if any of the target city articles mention the buildings already (hopefully THOSE mentions are sourced at least). i get that they dont all need to be notable enough to have their own article to be on this list, esp. as they are likely all historic buildings, thus there is no question that they have that minimal level of notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Buildings, especially synagogues are always notable. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find WP policy addressing the subject of notability standards for buildings. I think we have policy which says that human settlements are almost always notable. I know that some buildings cannot be considered notable but maybe we do accept certain more permanent structures as automatically notable. If anyone can find support for debressers statement, either in policy or in a common sense argument, i would support keeping this article as it stands, and not stubifying it. My main concern is that we simply dont know if any of these listings really exist. but maybe thats not for addressing here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Māori battles

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

Article title wrong; Most list items have been mangled to remove macrons form the names; almost all items are unreferenced; these are long-standing issues as per talk page Stuartyeates (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an encyclopedic article. Any relevant info should be included in New Zealand Wars. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A poorly defined list. Title confusing, content difficult to verify Kahuroa (talk) 04:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shakouri-Rad

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

Delete No great explanation as to why he it notable, few English hits on Google as well. Beeshoney (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN.Doesn't seem to be a Elected offical anymore. Floul1^{Talk To me} 10:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary. the wub "?!" 10:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a stub, but reformist politicians are notable, certainly Iranian ones. There are external references on the page. English Google hits should not be a criterion. -- Evertype·✆ 10:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Former member of a national legislature. the wub "?!" 10:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - former senior national politician. Thparkth (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Thparkth. --John (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Speedy Keep, conspicuously invalid nomination rationale, WP:POINTY intent; as the wub points out, no explanation of notability is required for a member, past or present, of a national legislature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Google news hits in English, let alone Persian. Chris (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as g hits have good quality, I found these 2 news items from BBC , BBC link1 , BBC link2, Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Shakouri Rad is a notable reformist in Iran.Farhikht (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, unjustified AfD. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dariush Talai

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

Only one reference, mainly an un-source list. Beeshoney (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, evidence of notability. --John (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The cited reference, an allmusic biography, is more than sufficient to indicate notability. The nominator does not contest notability or sourceability, and advances no other valid rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. With respect, BLPs require at least one reference. This article contains one reference. Article meets criteria for inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I added another source which is a famous Iranian newspaper. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidence of notability.Farhikht (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Alvand

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

No references. Beeshoney (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then find some. Keep. --John (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly difficult to find references when there aren't any, John. Surprise me by finding some yourself. This article is 4 years old and there is still not one reference! Beeshoney (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show how scarce references are: There are less than 2000 English results for this person on Google - as you can see here. My own user name gets nearly 3 times more results (shown here). Even TFOWR (just shown as an example because you might think that "beeshoney" is common) gets over twice the results, as shown here. Beeshoney (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very difficult to source (tried, failed, best I can do is a filmography), probably also fails WP:ENT. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Weak Keep - the new source is less than brilliant (doesn't show much notability) but it's better than nothing while the article is a stub --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the person's name is سیروس الوند, as noted in the article, and searching for this name shows a great wealth of potential sources. Thparkth (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per THparkth; difficulty in locating English-language sources is not itself valid deletion rationale for non-Western cultural figure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he's a notable filmmaker, I added a source which is a famous Iranian news paper. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Notable in Iran is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won a Crystal Simorgh which is enough to establish his notability.Farhikht (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shams Ensemble

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

Doesn't explain in enough detail why it is notable, not enough in-line references. Beeshoney (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems good enough to me. --John (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notability is established. This article contains two independent references. Article meets criteria for inclusion. Lack of inline references is not a deletion criteria. Cindamuse (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Cindamuse and also I added the BBC Persian source. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a reference from Huffingtonpost. The band is notable.Farhikht (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references now easily establish notability --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homayoun Shajarian

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

No in-line reference, no English references. It's important to note that the BBC reference is NOT in English. Beeshoney (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no inline citations, but the BBC article provided shows evidence of notability. Note that the nominator has not proposed any policy-based reason for deletion. Thparkth (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and this. There are no English references for this article - I quote from Verifiability: "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors". I also quote from BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Unless the article is improved, I still say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a link to where you have requested a translation of the Persian source? And could you please clarify which material you think is likely to be challenged in the article? Thparkth (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request a translation here. I also challenge all of the material in the article, as none of it has in-line citations. Beeshoney (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Thparkth. --John (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Thparkth and John, and repeatedly trout-slap the nominator with the largest available piscine resource. The fact that the BBC published a lengthy interview with the article subject, regardless of language, is substantial evidence of notability; the nominator's wikilawyering in defense of his slothful failure to take advantage of freely available online translation resources is more suggestive of disruptive intent than of intent to promote article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per Thparkth and also Google hits in Farsi and English have good quality. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jalil Shahnaz

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

No ENGLISH references, terrible grammar. Beeshoney (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although there are no inline citations, there is evidence of notability in the external links provided (e.g BBC article). Note that the nominator has not proposed any reason based on policy why the article should be deleted. Thparkth (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and this. There are no English references for this article - I quote from Verifiability: "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors". I also quote from BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Unless the article is improved, I still say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator has not requested a translation of the sources, and has not identified any specific material which he believes is problematic from a BLP point of view. Even then, these are not reasons for deletion of the article. Thparkth (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I request a translation of the references. It seems as if you don't read Wikipedia's guidelines yourself - all articles, especially biographies, need references. Simple as. Beeshoney (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. [26] [27] Of course machine translation isn't good enough to quote on a page but IMHO good enough for simple verification. Thparkth (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Thparkth. --John (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You call that a translation? :O I don't understand it. The article still needs English references. I won't comment any more as I've put my point across. I still say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thparkth. If bad grammar was grounds for deletion, we should start with the nominator's userpage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as I consider BBC Persian a reliable source, also Hamshari is a famous Iranian newspaper. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep one of the most important Iranian musician.Farhikht (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolvahaab Shahidi

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

No ENGLISH references, doesn't seem very notable. Beeshoney (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request a translation, not deletion. And don't shout, please. Keep. --John (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid rationale advanced for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as he's noted a Pioneer musician by BBC Persian, I added the source to the article. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There's several different possible transcriptions of the name (e.g. those used in these two books: 1 and 2).Farhikht (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shahidi and Gholamhossein Banan are the masters of an entire era of music in modern Iranian musical history. I'm confused as to why deletion is even being considered. Umar99 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wagner's first love

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

The article is written in an unencyclopedic manner, the subject matter is of dubious notability outside of the Richard Wagner article and was recently removed from that article under debate of the accuracy of the sources. In any event I feel this article should be removed and the subject matter should go back to debate at the main article. This is an unnecessary off-shoot. Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note To better organize the conversations I have created three sections: Arguments For, Arguments Against, and Comments / Follow-up Arguments. I have left all interactions in-line and in proper context. My reasoning for the organization was that this AfD was quickly becoming a muddle of thick text and I'm hoping that additional voices will find this format easier to add their thoughts to.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the "For"/"Against" subsection headers, per discussion at WP:ANI#Organizing AfD comments. Note also that WP:AFDEQ has an item directly on topic: "Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep/delete/other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count." Nsk92 (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep
I agree that the article needs significant copy edit, but delete the article only because of that is simply wrong.
Everything connected to Richard Wagner is notable.
The article should not be added to Richard Wagner due to undo weight.
Way too many sources mention the life affair just to ignore it Here are only very few:
[28] by Frederic Taber Cooper
[29]] by Rupert Hughes
[30]
[31]
here is only google books search result Please notice that one of them was written by Richard Wagner himself (his own letters), while others are used as references for Richard Wagner article.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Mbz1 + the focus of the article is the affair, and therefore notability of persons doesn't matter in this case. Is this a notable historic affair? yes. Is this covered in third-party and reliable sources? yes. Since the answer to both questions is positive the article should be kept. Broccoli (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to both questions is definitely not 'yes', (in fact noone has cited any significant authority who thinks so); that is why the article is up for deletion. If you can provide a reliable source or sources, instead of the fantasists suggested so far, please do so.--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very unreliable sources, who invented 'quotes' for Wagner which are cited here. No details apart from Leah David's name in any reputable Wagner biography. No doubt she and Wagner may have been childhood friends but this is not a topic for a WP article unless proper, recognized, references and sources can be adduced. In any case subject is non-notable both in herself and in any effects she can be demionstrated to have had on Wagner or on anyone else. Not even in my opinion worthy of a note in the main Wagner article unless anyone can show otherwise--Smerus (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The woman herself would fail notability policy per WP:NOTINHERITED. But this isn't an attempt to write a bio of her, otherwise the article title would be Leah David. What we have here is an apparently hastily-written "look at the antisemite who once had a Jewish girlfriend!" attempt at an article, which appears to be a clear-cut WP:POVFORK given that it was recently removed from Richard Wagner. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by block evading sockpuppet removed)

I agree the article should be copy edited, and I hope that it will be, but I do not believe it should be merged into Richard Wagner exactly because it is less renowned relationship than the one you mentioned above. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, if the relationship isn't significant enough to warrant mention in the main Wagner article, where does it magically attain enough notability for a standalone article? Tarc (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I did not say it should not be mentioned, of course it should be, and it should link to Richard Wagner's first love from Richard Wagner. Merging a new article into the main one will be undue weight.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by block evading sockpuppet removed)

Well, if a life event or a relationship of a notable person got a significant coverage in the reliable sources (as this one did), yes, they could have their own articles, and they are. For example Immortal Beloved has its own article versus being a section in Beethoven. Why not to merge Mozart and smallpox and Mozart's starling and Mozart and Salieri into Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is unencyclopedic. Creating a separate spin-off article about Wagner's girlfriend gives far more undue weight than creating a section in the main article. It's very unlikely that there is enough encyclopedic information about this subject to actually fill up an article. Creating a short section in Richard Wagner (or perhaps even a somewhat longer treatment in Wagner controversies, if appropriate) which mentions the affair along with a few sentences about what happened and why it was notable would give this the proper amount of weight. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for information, not a single one of the principle sources mentioned by Mbz1, including the one that gives the made up quote about RW's admiration for Leah David which is cited at length in the aerticle under discussion, is a recognised academic scholar of Wagner. Just because some hack has published a book doesn't make that book a credible reference. There is no mention of Leah David in Wagner's autobiography Mein Leben, and none of this preposterous sugary story can be found in any of the acknowledged leading biographies of RW such as Newman, Gregor-Dellin, von Westernhagen, etc. etc. No mention of Leah David in any of Wagner's letters. Unless anyone can produce primary evidence (not the fiction given credence this article) to show thast this is not a fairy-tale, nothing will persuade me that the article is anything more than the use of the internet to perpetrate a travesty; contrary to the whole idea of Wikipedia which is supposed to correct such nonsense.--Smerus (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Hughes and Frederic Taber Cooper are hacks? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book by Richard Wagner, Stewart Spencer, Barry Millington does mention Leah David.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes and Cooper have no competence or standing as music historians. Millington's edition of wagner's letters mentions the name Leah David once and carries nothing of the bizarre soap opera on which the article is constructed.--Smerus (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the sources are still being debated (obviously) I think the focus of the AfD should remain whether this warrants and entire fork article. I agree that having an article on this aspect of Wagner seems like undue weight.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you agree that everything that somehow connected to Wagner is notable, and I do not believe Wikipedia will suffer from providing for its readers an article about interesting episode from Wagner's life. --Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has NOTHING to do with content fork articles and the context in which information is presented. Also, as per your argument it is wikipedia policy that notability is not inherited, but this tangent has been discussed above in relation to having an article specifically on Leah. If the fork article is not completely necessary to the organization of the information presented about the subject I feel the information should be handled in a different way. I have watched a conversation evolve on the talk page of Smerus which outlines the possibility to include this information as a mention under the antisemitism section of the main Wagner article. I also feel it may find a home in the personal life section, but I do feel that an entire article isn't needed to convey the sourced information present at Richard Wagner's first love. If the sources are under debate... the reason for why a reference to this fork was removed from the Richard Wagner article, that is a matter for the talk page of that article and the Wagner project. If the information is not agreed as fact enough for the main article it is not an excuse for an editor to creator a content fork in an attempt to circumvent the discussion of such material. I am not questioning your specific motives, I see you are an excellent contributor and a value to the project. I am only stating my personal thoughts on editing etiquette in situations such as this. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by block evading sockpuppet removed)

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^chat 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info template is removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Personal relationships of Elvis Presley and Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln are precedent for these types of articles. The coverage the relationship has received clearly establish the notability of the topic. The most highfalutin sources are not required, as long as they are reliable. However, a rename to something more encyclopedic may be order, like Richard Wagner and Leah David relationship.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles cited include information related to many relationships. I would argue that under these circumstances you would need to include accurate information about Wagner's other affairs to make a compelling article. These other affairs are already present in the main article. Second to that, the sources are of debated integrity. Perhaps Smerus's comments below can add more as to why these sources are up for debate. The Wagner wikiproject has been talking over the sources and excluded specifically excluded this information from Richard Wagner due to the question of accuracy. If the article were to stay with the current sources it would need to be stubbed and rewritten from a POV that assumes the subject matter is speculative. I don't know if that is the best scenario. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Expand it further and rename the article to something like Relationships of Richard Wagner.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that could work, but ultimately it would be a completely new article and not the one we're debating.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an expansion upon this article, but it would be more difficult for the expanded article to go forward if this one is deleted.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. No evidence given that David was truly noteworthy in Wagner's life. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - IMHO this page should be deleted. Leah David is of interest only in so much as she provides evidence to support the notion that Wagner had no strong anti-semitic feelings in his youth. But she doesn't warrant an entry bigger than that for Dresden Amen for example. To go down this route, we should also have articles on "Richard Wagner's dogs", "Richard Wagner's Vegetarianism", etc. If the page is retained it needs at very least to be renamed (Leah David, rather than Wagner's First Love) and rewritten, since it is unencyclopaedic in its current format.--Dogbertd (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because per WP:NOTINHERITED, "everything connected to Richard Wager" is NOT notable - they have to stand on their own, and I just don't see that. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article's tone needs to be made more encyclopedic, but topic itself is notable, and has received sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, as evidenced by RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace by totally different article Smerus has questioned the existence of any substantial material on this woman and her relaitonship with Wagner existing. Modern writers such as Millington mention her in passing, but unless it can be shown that the details in the primary source consist of more than just confabulation, I don't see any evidence that this incident merits an article. She may be worth mentioning in the main article or Richard Wagner and anti-Semitism, if it ever becomes more than a redirect, or in the controversies article, but she cannot sustain an article in her own right. Brewcrewer's suggestion on an article on the relationship's of Wagner has some merit. Wagner was a notorious womaniser and there is a relationship between some of his affairs and his creative work, Mathilde Wesendonck's role as a muse for Tristan und Isolde being just the most famous example.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources to substantiate the existing content. I don't see enough coverage here to justify a separate article on this topic. If there were a sufficient basis to justify a separate article on Leah David, I would accept one; but the tenuous assertion that this is a significant episode in Wagner's life doesn't convince me. If it's of demonstrable significance, it belongs in Richard Wagner; if not, it doesn't belong at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deor (talk • contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2010
Keep The fact that Wagner has a personal category means that he is significant enough that including articles that he is relevant too, we can develop multiple articles based on parts of his life, including significant episodes like this. Perhaps the nom mistakenly put Afd template instead of 'improve' template. This is not an issue of inherited as mentioned above. --Shuki (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed an AfD template to discuss for the reasons listed and the debate has editors who are on both sides of the issue. Please refrain from making such statements about myself or other editors, as it is an unnecessary addendum to an otherwise useful comment and I will not take the WP:Bait and bring the discussion to a personal level. Thank you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic and doesn't merit an article. Poorly sourced. Take out asides and commentary and put a line or two in Richard Wagner instead. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's an interesting article, but Mbz1 didn't write it. Nearly every sentence and every paragraph was lifted wholesale and without quotation marks from the first three sources cited. Some quality time with google books will verify that for anyone who cares to look. I don't know what the policy is on this, but the copyrights are expired on those three sources, I think, since they were written in 1915, 1896 - that may be a translation date, and 1892, respectively. Also, the second source was improperly cited. The correct citation would be to an article named "The First Love of Richard Wagner" in an English-language translation of a kind of popular-press magazine for Jewish families that was current at the turn of the last centrury, something like our Reader's Digest magazine, I think. (I'll correct/expand that citation.) If the article could be properly rewritten, and if each direct quotation from the sources that was to remain were properly set off in quotes and clearly cited, then my first impression is that it could be an interesting addition ... if the sources are deemed reliable, that is. ( We could use the help of a historian or literary scholar fluent in German to sort it for us, I think, re that second source. ) That's a lot of "ifs", but my first impression is that it's an interesting and attractive subject. Oh, also, if it's retained as an article, we'd have to make it clear that we are discussing a 13 year old boy, here. Such an article would have to be renamed. Puppy loves of Richard Wagner, maybe? ;-) In any case, Leah David was evidently not the 13 year-old Wagner's first such attraction. A girl named Malchen Lehmann preceded Leah David in the boy's fancy, according to the fourth source cited in the current article, the one to the 2004 Spencer translation of Joachim Kohler's German-language biography of Wagner. This same source does imply, though, on page 41, that his first three boyhood interests were Jewish girls, saying, "Evidently it was Jewish girls who came closest to his early ideal in such matters." Interesting stuff, and if the information in this Richard Wagner's first love article holds up to further scrutiny, then it should at least be incorporated in some way into Wagner controversies, imo. It would sit well located alongside the information that already exists there giving some support to the possibility that Wagner might have been the genetic son of Ludwig Geyer, a man who is normally considered to have been his stepfather, and who most of the (admittedly very few) sources I've seen describe as Jewish. Sorry for the long post; more to follow about this at some point, I think, on the talk page for Richard Wagner's first love. – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or possibly userfy with the idea of a subsequent merge to Wagner controversies. I find the original sources very appealing, but the article can't really stay in mainspace in its current "copylifted" state. ( See above. ) And like other editors, I also think the first three turn-of-the-last-century sources need consideration as to their reliability. Finally, because this article only covers the 13 year-old Wagner, it seems hard to justify it as an independent article without too heavy a reliance on speculation that this year in his life was prototypical, that it might have set a pattern for all his subsequent years. If more material were added about his later romantic attachments, I could imagine something along the lines of Love life of Richard Wagner. That's quirky enough of a title for a doctoral thesis, actually. ;-) Btw, I was probably too hard on Mbz1, above. I see that he had to contend with deletion almost from the moment he created the stub, and I bet he'd have rewritten the article and cleaned it up considerably if he'd had time. I suppose this illustrates why it's better to develop an article on a user subpage in the first place, than it is to progressively create one in a series of mainspace edits. – OhioStandard (talk)

Comment. Torchwood Who? (talk) has asked above for clarification as to why I regard the sources quoted in this article as unacceptable. First it should be understood that Wagner is intensively researched and that virtually every scrap he has written has been published. I am not aware of any first hand documentation by Wagner (in his letters or autobiographical writings) that make any reference to Leah David or the novelettish sequence of events (Dutchman, dog) referred to in this article. Of course I will withdraw this coment, and my objections ot the article, if anyone can provide such sources. If they can provide sources then of course there is not need to quote Praeger - who made a living, to Wagner's intense annoyance, of pretending that he knew Wagner and publishing sensational stories about Wagner's life. Very little, if anything, of what Praeger wrote that is not substantiated by genuine references is true. Cooper is a hack who never knew Wagner and there is no reason to suppose that anything he wrote about Wagner, not substantiated by genuine references, is true. In short, neither Cooper nor Praeger, on whom this article very extensively relies (and from both of whom it apparently quotes verbatim in extenso) can be acceptable as sources for Wagner, unless they cite genuine primary sources - in which case those sources should be cited, and not the piffle written by Praeger and Cooper themselves. If the story cannot be substantiated - and if no one can demonstrate that David had any effect on Wagner's life and works - then this article falls on the grounds of WP:Verify and WP:Notable. This is a textbook case of demonstrating that proper, and ideally peer-reviewed (i.e. academic), sources should be used wherever possible in WP, especially in articles which my be controversial. You can't just accept any old rubbish that happens to been printed somewhere, sometime, as an acceptable reference - because then the reputation of WP would, justly, suffer, and the work of untold numbers of diligent contributors would be denigrated along with that of the more carefree.

I certainly agree with the comments of others that a properly sourced and referenced article on Richard Wagner's Love Life would be interesting and valuable - and I might attempt it myself some day if have a few months or years to spare - but when it is written - whoever writes it - the story (or possibly legend) of Leah David will be only a minor parenthesis, unless and until anyone can demonstrate some genuine reliable sources.--Smerus (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I suppose I should apply my own standards to myself, I will cite, in support of my comments on Praeger, the following, based on Stewart Spencer, Wagner Remembered (Faber & Faber, London, 2000), pp. 80-81. Praeger met Wagner on 17 occasions in London in 1855. He met him on four subsequent occasions between 1857 and 1882. (He thus did not even meet Wagner until twenty years or more after Wagner's supposed infatuation with Leah David). Praeger "falsified documents in an attempt to exaggerate his importance in Wagner's life" and his "text needs to be treated with caution".--Smerus (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- and in this connection, as regards reliability of sources, see also OhioStandard 's comments at Talk:Richard_Wagner's_first_love.--Smerus (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I also note by the way that the creator of this article has now given up Wikipedia - see User:Mbz1 - --Smerus (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Police Department (Nebraska)

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

Local Police department stubs, no indication of significance, let alone notability as per either WP:GNG, WP:ORG or WP:CLUB (I am assuming that you can call a Police department a Non-commercial organization), contested speedy and PROD (Prod without explanation). As per WP:CLUB : Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs: Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization. as there already is List of law enforcement agencies in Nebraska in which these are listed and nothing other than contact details in an info box, there is nothing to merge and I don't see it as a likely search term they should be Deleted.

Also nominating :

Codf1977 (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (disclaimer: I've only checkef three of these stubs, no prejudice against expansion if indeed notable). Agree with the nominator, these stubs have no future. Who will track the changes in address, names of chief officers in infoboxen (BLP issue) etc. East of Borschov 10:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are all non-notable stubs that are part of a mass-creation by one editor [32]. This isn't the first example of kittens nor would it be the last, but we have editors who decide that it's a good idea to create lots and lots of pages at the same time, for whatever reason; in all the cases I've seen, the creator then moves on, never to visit the article again. Regardless of whether we feel that that type of practice is helpful, or disruptive, we have to go by policy. Stubs are only acceptable in the case of subjects that are, by policy, defined as inherently notable subjects; hence, it would be okay to make hundreds of stub articles about persons who have served in the Parliament of Bulgaria or who had played in a major professional sports league, because we have a policy that says that those subjects are inherently notable. There is no policy that I am aware of that says that a village, town, city, county, etc. police department is inherently notable. Hence, the creation of hundreds of articles about local law enforcement, without any showing of notability, is something that goes against established policy. Mandsford 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Road (album)

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

un-notable album, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela's Soul Melaen (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a promo page for an album by a band that just formed, and neither album nor band have yet gained enough independent notice for an encyclopedia. See the band's AfD too. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected by creator. Secret ^account 02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Coca-Cola 600

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

A little too early. No content here right now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the Nom too early. Codf1977 (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence that the events name in 2011 will be Coca-Cola 600. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per crystal. too early. Cindamuse (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article will be recreated anyway, and there are about 99.99 percent that Coca-Cola will continue their long time sponsorship. Nascar 1996 ^{Contributions / Guestbook} 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – article's creator has now redirected it. Airplaneman ✈ 06:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela's Soul

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

scarce notability: band founded in 2010, supporting references consist in lastfm, blog and myspace page Melaen (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet far enough in their career to have gained sufficient notice for an encyclopedia. Also, Wikipedia is not meant for promotion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dutch Shell safety concerns

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

The article deals with a valid topic; however, right now it is just a collection of news to incriminate Royal Dutch Shell. The article serves as attack page and WP:POVFORK created by editor who has/had court case with Royal Dutch Shell. The article does not have any logical structure or references. Significant part of it is copy-pasted from different news which raise copyvio concerns. I thought a quite long time how to improve this article; however, having a painful experience with cleaning-up Sakhalin-II article overloaded similar stuff from the same editor, it seems that clean start would be better solution. It is also not clear if a separate article is needed or the safety issues concerning Royal Dutch Shell could be better addressed in Royal Dutch Shell or Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell articles (the last one is also messy and needs extensive work). Beagel (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above analysis - the same editor User:Johnadonovan has also created similar articles Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues and Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell, both of which have similar issues. I and others have made an effort to improve "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell", but "Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues" is a similar mess.

The article Royal Dutch Shell already has sections covering these subtopics - I would suggest expanding these sections with notable, concise information and deleting these, frankly unfixable articles. In my opinion they should be deleted on copyright violation grounds as well, since ~50% of the content is direct copy-paste. I would strongly recommend a fresh start.

As an aside I'm annoyed that User:Johnadonovan has consistently ignored WP:COI and created poorly formed attack pages riddle with copyright violations (see User_talk:Johnadonovan#Shell_articles_cleanup). It would also be helpful if someone could examine whether a topic or even total ban/block for User:Johnadonovan is suitable - given the numerous problems with every contribution they have made.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has continually ignored his COI, I do think a topic ban is in order. Codf1977 (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have currently have one Royal Dutch Shell article and 3 "shell's problems" pages - if someone can recommend a good structure for covering this info (preferably 1 or 2 subpages max?) I would volunteer to rewrite any useful info currently in the problem pages.Sf5xeplus (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, possibly notable topic, I might mark it for rescue if it was smaller but his is a hachet job and almost an attack page. COI concerns are a major issue here Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the others, it is a biased attack page. At the end of the AfD, if the consensus is to delete, I intend to nominate the other "Shell problem" pages.Codf1977 (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - after reading the page, the main reason to delete seems to stem simply from WP:IDL. It attacks Shell but those attacks uses actual news reports. Obviously without Shell's response, the article is currently one sided, but the point is...the page uses verifiable references that are from respectable news sources. The only thing this page is guilty of is a lack of balance. A simple tag can solve that not deletion. If pages, based on legitimate sources are going to be removed because they make unpalatable commentary. What does that say about Wikipedia? For example the Catholic sex abuse cases article is based entirely on negative news reports concerning events. It is not listed for deletion as an attack page on the world's largest Christian religion. If Wikipedia is to going have policies then they should be applied fairly and consistently. It would also seem to me that the need to delete is based more on who the article's author is and not what they are saying. As a neutral, I just read the page and made my own judgement. It needs work but it doesn't need to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.4.232 (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the copyright issues then ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

odd the IP is citing policy and using wikilinks... with no other edits.... odd dont you think? Smells like a dirty sock. Hope fully some one will stop by and admit they forgot to sign in...Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but I take those remarks very, very personally. I have been on this site since about 2004. And I have never had an account because I don't buy into the BS that has grown up with being an editor, and all the accoutrements that go with it. The idea of an open source encyclopedia relies on good faith. But I can see what the remark I am "a dirty sock" truly demonstrates, something I have known for along time (LOL: nowadays "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has a real hollow sound). I use an IP because what I say, I say on merit and the quality of what I say is based on facts that I know. However there are too many editors here who get a little bit of power - a barnstar, a title and they become the all-knowing keepers of the sacred seal of truth, knowledge and everything ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"). I believe if my work is good, then it will stay. My work is based on being nothing more than an IP, it therefore has nothing to do with any self-styled "status" of a user account. In this case, and let's not forget about Shell, all I was trying to state was the article is in a pretty poor state, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and this is an article on a notable topic (the oil industry safety record in general is already pretty questionable BBC: New checks on safety for ageing North Sea platforms 28/07/2010 / Scotsman: North Sea industry told 'raise game on safety' after jump in gas releases 24/08/2010). It shouldn't just be deleted because of the author. But it seems that this agenda has also been applied to me (an anon IP = questionable ethics i.e. not to be trusted) because I had the temerity to make a point in support of this article. Wikipedia is now a shadow of what is was, there was a time when the call would be to be bold and make changes. Things now have just degenerated into personal attacks and arbitrary decisions based on who is saying this, or saying that. By staying independent, all I have is the contributions I make with an IP address. In the case of this article, it's just been tagged. There has been no attempt to improve it or change it, only delete it. What happened about being bold? BTW if someone has been too lazy to write their own copy, then rewrite it. In my experience, nearly every "good article" has copyright issues because they are just reiterating conclusions of previously published sources. A direct result of Wikipedia policy of not allowing Original Research. Are you going to start removing all those previously published statements from all the main page articles? Of course not. Copyright should not be confused with plagiarism; but that doesn't mean deletion just judicious editing. So to people like Weaponbb7, why don't you spend less time worrying about power politics and conspiracy theories and actually get on with making contributions, huh? I do and for being bold, I get pilloried for it. I am no sock puppet except for my previous post. In fact, the reason I hadn't made any edits (and why I got on to this page) is because I often have a sad need to read AfDs and the user pages of dispute causing social-dysfunctional misfits. Ironically I now spent half my evening formulating a response to justify myself or my actions after a personal attack. Is this really what Wikipedia was set up to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.20.99 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sock calling is uneccesary, let me apologise to you for that since you took it personally, it's not clear that anyone here has a history of such a thing. Please note that in addition to the poor quality of the article as it is; as I noted above 50% of the text is copy-pasted from other places. This would be a clear case for using Template:Copyvio which eventually leads to a deletion if the problem is not resolved. (To see what the copyright notice that results looks like see Template:Copyviocore). Basically as you note - it's a mess that needs cleaning up. Copyright violations are really not acceptable on this scale, the only reason I haven't 'tagged' it so far is that I hoped my message on the article's primary editor's page would have some effect on the problem.Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all g3, longterm IWE/Kev vandalism - these are all stuff this guy made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MySpaceIWE Night of Titles

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

There's no content here. I assume it's being setup for a future event, but there's 0 content and I don't see any explanation of why the article's notable. Creator removed the speedy but this is appropriate now. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating: IWEMyspace Night of Gold (2010) Shadowjams (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Adding this: IWE MySpace IWE World Championship. Shadowjams (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note IWE Myspace Night of Gold (2010) (note that the difference between this title and the one Shadowjams notes above is a space between the "IWE" and the "Myspace"), which I speedied as it (a) had no context to explain why it was here, and (b) had a section heading below the table, titled "DONT NOT DELETE!!" That said, these articles all lack any sort of context to explain what they even are in the first place, let alone any sourced indication of actual notability — and, in fact, I don't think we can entirely rule out the possibility that these events are outright WP:HOAXes. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would somebody tag those articles with the proper AFD tags? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one would that be. They're both properly tagged. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm getting confused by all of the pages this editor is in the process of creating, with similar names and virtually no distinguishable content. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Can we add MySpace IWE Championship to this group. ttonyb (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about killers

AfDs for this article:

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

wp:notdir violation - non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization. Unmaintainably large, and almost completely unsourced. Claritas § 08:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never having seen this list before, I was expecting something very different from its title and the deletion nom—a list of songs generally about killing, or in which some vague protoganist may or may not be a killer, or it may or may not be a metaphor for something else, blah blah blah, wishy washy OR. But this list is actually very specific and well organized: it's a list of songs about real, notable killers, organized by the subject (Charles Manson, Lizzie Borden, etc.). Though largely unverified at present, this is obviously verfiable, and AFD is not for articles that can be cleaned up. I don't get how this is unmaintainable, though perhaps the title should be made more precise to better reflect its contents, and the unelaborated claim that this is somehow an unencyclopedic cross-categorization is just empty words. So keep. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unencyclopaedic cross-categorization in that Songs about killers is not an encyclopaedic topic. The songs should be mentioned on the biographies of the criminals - the list is a directory of (mainly non-notable) songs. Claritas § 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still throwing in the words "cross-categorization" without tethering it to anything. This list is not the intersection of two or more unrelated things (as in this recent AFD); it's a list of songs organized by their subject matter. That you think that subject matter is unencyclopedic is another matter. I don't think it's necessary for a full article to be written about every list topic in order for that list to be valid, though given the "further reading" section at the bottom, it looks like there are actually many sources about songs written about killers. It also isn't necessary for every entry on a list to be notable (i.e., merit its own article), so long as (in this case) it's a song by a notable band and/or on a notable album. Again, even assuming that there are songs in this list that fail to meet content inclusion standards, the solution is to remove them, not to delete the entire list. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIR does not forbid lists, as lists are a well-established object on Wikipedia. This list is obviously not unmaintainably large as we have other lists on Wikipedia with over 100,000 entries and this list doesn't even come close. It is not completely unsourced but contains several excellent sources such as American Murder Ballads and their Stories, published by the Oxford University Press. There are lots more sources out there as there seems to be a vast literature about serial killers and their coverage in the media. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf. This is a valuable collection of information organized in way that works better on Wikipedia than anywhere else.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf. Claritas, I do not think "non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization" means what you think it means. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really don't see how this is different to the Muslim footballer example given. Listing songs in terms of one aspect of them (the subject), is just as problematic as doing so with persons. I can't see how mentioning a murderer is the most important link between these songs. How "valuable" the information is has no bearing whatsoever. The issue is that this is a list of non-notable entities, and a cross-categorization, and thus violated WP:NOTDIR. Claritas § 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're consistently operating from numerous incorrect premises regarding lists. There is no requirement that a list group entries by "the most important link," because one list is not mutually exclusive with other lists organized around other "links" (i.e., shared facts). So any single entry could be present in multiple lists that index its connection to other entries by various shared facts. So let's not see that claim again in another AFD, okay?
The subject matter of a song is integral to that song; it's what the song is about. Wikipedia did not invent the concept of grouping creative works by subject matter. This list further groups its entries by the specific killer; you can't seriously contend that one song about Charles Manson has no reasonable connection to another song about Charles Manson (particularly since you said you'd rather see all the sublists dumped into the articles on the killers themselves). Note that I'm assuming this list does more than just group songs that "mention" the killer, as you've instead characterized it; to the extent that's not true, the list needs to be pruned, but cleanup is not grounds for deletion.
Repeating your opinion ("cross-categorization"..."violated WP:NOTDIR") does not advance or strengthen your argument. postdlf (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a problem with it. It is not a directory, and I am not sure why the subject is inherently "non-encyclopedic". Some of the songs need links to the appropriate article (either the song itself or an album) though. Rlendog (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs a better name Grouping songs by theme seems entirely reasonable. No way could this be handled by e.g. categories. TheGrappler (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Child Mental Health Research Trust

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

No assumed notability; advertising-style tone. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - fails wp:gng due to lack of Independent coverage. Claritas § 08:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It has been pointed out that five goals from one player is a Premier League record, but consensus is that one notable element in the game does not make the game itself notable and that Shearer's goal scoring should be recorded in the his biography instead of in an article on the match. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C.

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

Recent consensus is that high scoring games and games that ~~set~~ (share) records are not notable.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C. I do think this is notable and hate to do it as a Newcastle fan but the community said no to a very similar article.Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highscoring is POV - where do you draw the line? Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it was a record or when the sources pass the requirements as GNG are my thoughts on it.Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of reliable third-party sources for this match, not just from contemporary media, but also in the years since. Furthermore, the match featured a record-equalling scoring feat from Alan Shearer (five goals in a Premier League game). – Pee Jay 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not the news and not a likely search term. Codf1977 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a particularly notable game other than lots of goals. Giant Snowman 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

huh?Cptnono (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be included in Newcastle's article for that season rather than having its own page. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see what distinguishes this from other high scoring (but not record-breaking) matches. WP:NOTNEWS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm only inclined to do so because of Alan Shearer's record-equalling five goals in a Premier League match. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for consistency. Perhaps an RfC for match notability were in order? Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 07:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure there is a consensus that "high scoring games and games that ~~set~~ (share) records are not notable." One particular article got deleted, but that doesn't mean this one necessarily should be. The nom sounds a lot like WP:ALLORNOTHING. If there are independent reliable sources for the game, especially 3 years after the fact (per Pee Jay), then this game may indeed be notable, and that ought to resolve issues raised above such as "not a particularly notable game other than lots of goals" or " highscoring is POV". Rlendog (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate that this is anything more then WP:NEWS. Its most notable aspect is the personal record set by Andrew Cole, which should be included in the subject's bio, but there does not appear to be enough for a stand alone article.--Pink Bull 04:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clipping path. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clipping path service

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

Essentially spam, by a promoter of a company that supplies such a service. Unsourced, and apparently nonnotable as a concept. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect article to Clipping path; not sure there's anything else in the article worth preserving. --Jayron32 06:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jayron32 - Dwayne was here! ♫ 06:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per saiful_9999 - There was no clear indication in the article that the article contents are bearing to promote a company promotion

If unfortunately, any information is or are related to show a company promotion, please delete this information in the article. As the new comer writer I have no any company promotion intention in the article -saiful_9999 Most probably Clipping Path Specialist and Clipping Path India references are making problem as a spam article. So I have deleted the links from External Link.

saiful_9999-Exist article “Clipping path” in the wikipedia is basically provided us definition type information on clipping path. On the other hand, the article “Clipping path service” is necessary in the wikipedia to know about the importance of clipping path service in the digital world and the exit article of clipping path service is written by informative information. So, in my view, the article should not be considered for deletion. The article can be edited or improved instant of deletion. I think this will be wise decision. —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

redirect as per others. Although not promoting any one firm it's written like advertising copy, and although this could be fixed the entire topic is non-notable, much as "car washing sevice" or "shoe repair service" would be. No need for an article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure the concept per se is unnotable. Given the high number of companies providing such services and the fact that it is not obvious that companies are outsourcing such services, I tend to think there can be said something about it within an article like that. Please note that the clipping path article does not address this aspect, so if you're suggesting a redirect the fact that there are services providing this needs to be mentioned in that article (probably best as a single concise(!) section). Of course, the current state of this article is unacceptable, full of broken verbiage and original research. Nageh (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quite frankly, I am wondering why this AFD is yielding a different result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C., but I cannot in good faith say that I can see a consensus for deletion, and with the article being verifiable I cannot see a compelling policy based reason to overrule and the community and delete regardless either. If I had voted in this AFD, I would have gone with "delete", because a record for the top English league since 1992-1993 is a news story, not a sporting history story. In any league, one or more games during the last 20 seasons will be the largest victory, or the game with the most goals, or the game with the most red cards, and so on. The consequence is that any league will (in principle) be able to produce individual articles for all sorts of footballing records made in that particular league, and I am unconvinced that this is a good idea.

I find the keep votes here unpersuasive, as they are largely a version of "it's notable", or "it's a game I remember". But I didn't really find the delete votes convincing either, they are assertions of non-notability, and Google News hits is hardly in indicator of notability either. The "keep" side is clearly in a majority. In football terms on who's got the best points here, I would call this a 0-0 draw, which defaults to "no consensus". Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.

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

Recent consensus is that high scoring games and games that ~~set~~ share a record are not notable.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C. Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up since I left out my personal thoughts: I do think it is notable but the admin made it clear that consensus said otherwise in an article that's notability is similar (if not the exact same).Cptnono (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Cptnono (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This match is notable. Even disregarding contemporary sources, there is still plenty of media coverage of the match. Furthermore, this match is the biggest win in Premier League history and featured the first time that one player has scored five goals in one game. The match was talked about a lot at the time, and it will continue to be talked about for years to come. – Pee Jay 06:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Think this match is notable (and anyway I'd like to encourage more articles of this type). If anyone ever gets around to actually creating notabilty guidelines for matches, the fact that in some way the match broke some record (e.g. scoring, attendance etc.) might be a useful start? It could save some editors alot of trouble creating stuff. As a side issue why is Liverpool 5–0 Nottingham Forest (1988) notable?--Egghead06 (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This match should be described in 1994–95 Manchester United F.C. season. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the most notable games of the Premier League, and one of my strongest, earliest footballing memories. Giant Snowman 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reluctant to !vote delete because I think this is notable. That said, this may be on course for a keep. I don't get what makes this game in which one team scored the highest number of goals in PL history, with a player scoring the most individual goals in one PL game, different to the other one. The clean sheet? The fact that it came first? I want this article to be kept, but without guidance on that potential inconsistency I'm not sure which way to go. For the benefit of people that come into this AfD later, I'd be grateful if I can get through this one without being personally attacked for daring to point out when users are misinterpreting or misapplying policy. --W F C-- 05:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well since there are two deletion discussions ongoing and a third was deleted, we could put this on hold and open an RfC on notability per the football specific guidelines. This gets a little screwy for me since I automatically go for GNG which would make all three notable. Might be better to hash out at the project page though. It is interesting that one is swingeing keed one is swinging delete, and the other was deleted.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Malleus Fatuorum that it belongs in the team's season page. Also agree with Egghead06 that guidelines need to be created for match notability. Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, because the submission does not make a correct rationale. This match did set a record, which Tottenham 9–1 Wigan did not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tink I get what you are getting at. This match "set" the record while the other one just equaled it?Cptnono (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That only really makes sense if the proposal is to delete this article if and when a higher scoring game comes along. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the match set a record or not is immaterial, as is whether or not you believe the nominator's rationale to be correct. How many people can you see doing a search on "Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.", for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They may not search for that exact title, but I can imagine quite a few people looking for an article about this match. After all, it was the first time any player scored five goals in a Premier League game and it's also the biggest win in the Premier League. To be honest, it satisfies the GNGs, so why should we delete it? – PeeJay 19:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you agree to its deletion if tomorrow there was a 10–0 match in which one player scored six goals? Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Possibly, but that doesn't change the fact that the game meets the general notability guidelines, in that it has had significant coverage in the media - and I'm not just talking about match reports that were written on the day of the game. People have written reams about this game in the 15 years since it happened. – Pee Jay 20:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So that's a "no" then, which I think makes the point. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are still talking about this match. I've heard it mentioned more than once recently on Canadian TV. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The rationale is still based on a false premise, because this match set the record, it didn't share it (and still doesn't). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of my earlier football memories; although creating a guidline for notable matches would be nice. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage the last month on news.google.com, so why is it notable? A lot of votes here don't refer to any outside data, but simply claim notability a priori. Precedent set at the 9-1 deletion debate. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The event happened more than 15 years ago, so of course there won't be any coverage at Google News! This match is notable. – PeeJay 13:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then books and such on the match must be available. The burden of proof is on the creator to assert notability, and the arguments here are mainly "it is notability per this comment" or because the GNG makes an exception for records(?). Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 14:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The logic behind the last point is that every professional football match ever played would meet the main points of WP:GNG, but fail the WP:NOTNEWS test. Matches which set league records have ongoing coverage (ie this game is referred to each time a team comes close to breaking the record), which the vast majority of league matches don't. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This match is already covered in a short paragraph in 1994–95 Manchester United F.C. season, which says just about as much as this article does but with added context. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd like to see the number of football match articles grow, and I think the guidelines on notable matches need to be relaxed, somewhat, and formally written down. It's never going to get to a point where people are adding routine matches, but games which are pivotal, or unusually high-scoring, or entertaining, should pass notablity, provided it can be sourced. This article fits notability, it's memorable in the way that most League games aren't. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To go further, I think that what's currently accepted is notable - far less notable matches are passed, as long as a trophy is collected out at the end, like with Charity Shields and even exhibition matches. I'm not saying these articles should go, far from it, but I think we should be trying to describe and expand on the history of football, and if certain matches play a part in that, and a part in the history of one or both of the clubs, then they should be included. This has to be justified and sourced, of course, but I think there's room for leeway. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not sure there is a consensus that "high scoring games and games that ~~set~~ (share) a record are not notable." One particular article got deleted, but that doesn't mean this one necessarily should be. The nom sounds a lot like WP:ALLORNOTHING. If there are independent reliable sources for the game, then this game may indeed be notable. While those sources need to be added to the article, since the nominator himself claims that he believes this game is notable, I am confident they exist. Rlendog (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim footballers

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

Largely unsourced BLP assertions, no apparent evidence of importance of faith as an issue in life of many of those listed rather than family tradition, no apparent ordering of theose included, very recentist, no qualification as to "notable", so presumably anyone who meets WP:ATH could be on it; destined to be perpetually and chronically incomplete, equivalent articles of lists of footballers by religion will presumably never be written, danger of becoming a pride list. Kevin McE (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kevin McE (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for all the reasons given here and on WT:FOOTY. Completely unworkable. Jared Preston (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Echetus Xe 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Given that football is played by practically every country on earth, there's no reason why there wouldn't be lots of Muslim players, and there's no connection between the player's faith and the game. So this is truly an unencyclopedic cross-categorization, contra WP:NOTDIR. postdlf (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anything useful and relevant could be included on British Asians in association football. Giant Snowman 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and WP:NOTDIR. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments given for deletion were stronger and more policy-based than the reasons for retention. Moreover, there is no way to ascertain where to move due to a lack of consensus of where to move to, plus the concerns given on the deletion side as far as POV and synthesis are concerned. –MuZemike 22:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist editing on Wikipedia

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

Article is basically a restatement of one source, with no evidence that the information within that source is particularly relevent outside of itself (i.e. independent coverage). A single news editorial uses the phrase "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" and someone appears to be trying to build an article about it. In addition, this is navel gazing of the worst kind, and really has no place in Wikipedia as an article. Jayron32 05:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - self-reference, no chance of being neutral.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is an article on it in the Guardian, too, but yeah, this is marginal. Plus shouldn't the title be the name of the course or something? ErikHaugen (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, I see this really is the name of the course, or at least a translation of it? I think wp:N is satisfied for this course, if barely. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The course booklet on the article page gives the name as merely "Wikipedia". The addition of "Zionist editing" is by the various media outlets who reported about it, and they too were using scare quotes. Poliocretes (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - this page contains something like "zionist editing" as part of the title, doesn't it? I don't read Hebrew, someone please tell me if I'm wrong, I think this is the crux of this debate given wp:N is satisfied. If the title of this article is made up by the original author and not the title of the course, then I would potentially support a merge (not redirect). ErikHaugen (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The title of the article was taken from the Haaretz articel which generated the first draft of this. (I wrote it.) I have been slammed for not using 'scare quotes' and I'd be happy for these to be inserted if that will satisfy people. Aa42john (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, if that is the name of the course, and the article is about the course, then it would be weird to put scare quotes around it. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But the only source that gives it that name is "Yesha News" (your link above), which is unsigned and hardly a WP:RS. Besides, the first sentence of the article is "Zionist editing on Wikipedia ... is a phenomenon which some ...", so the article is hardly about a course, is it? It borrows from this single event (whose title is disputed at best) to supposedly describe something far wider. The title is completely inappropriate, a blatant WP:POV. Poliocretes (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A separate article is not what's required here. Move the material (and sources) concerning Zionist editing to the appropriate article, Yesha Council (according to the Grauniad), since this is the organisation reportedly engaged in this activity (Israel Sheli is also mentioned, but a redlink suggests it may not be notable). Further, I can't tell from those in the current article because I don't read Hebrew, but some sources from the organisation(s) involved might be useful. It doesn't sound (again from the Grauniad) like they're embarrassed or coy about importing POV into WP. --PLUMBAGO 08:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we delete, then this may prove the point raised by the article. (I think the general issue is important - as you will know if you have tried to edit articles referring to e.g. Jerusalem's status or Israel's boundaries or attacks on Gaza: or even this one - see its 'history'.) The article needs expanding so it covers more examples than the current one. --Aa42john (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - The sources describe a deliberate and open (if misguided) attempt to shape the content of WP - are there, as you suggest, really more examples of this in reliable sources? Or are you referring to the more loosely organised efforts of either individuals or small groups of editors? If you mean the latter, this probably the case for most contentious issues in WP, so is unremarkable. --PLUMBAGO 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self reference. Plus a course with 100 students is not notable for it's own article. Should be merged into Yesha Council. Marokwitz (talk)

Comment - To be fair, the story has been picked up and published by at least one notable newspaper in the UK, so it goes a little beyond "self reference". --PLUMBAGO 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I proposed to merge the content into Yesha Council and not delete it altogether. Marokwitz (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia. Not notable by it self, but can be mentioned as one instance of politically motivated editing. Yesha Council is an option.Sjö (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - First the CAMERA invasion and now this, it's honestly only a matter of time before this becomes notable as a standalone topic, IMO. But personal opinions shouldn't drive editing, and unless/until sources are found that examine the whole of the topic, we ourselves can't stitch together separate events and call it "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" due to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policy. Tarc (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only that it is completely non-encyclopedic, this article isn't true whatsoever. Broccoli (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you think is "the truth" is irrelevant. Per WP:V; "verifiability, not truth". Tarc (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I will fight the cynical "not truth" platitude launched by Messrs. Sanger and Wales to my dying breath. VERACITY + VERIFIABILITY + NPOV. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A POV extravaganza. Don't let this happen to you. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm surprised this wasn't speedied as self-referential. The article Yesha Council already has a section about this, so this article is a WP:POVFORK given its name, particularly since the Haaretz article used as the primary source has the phrase "Zionist editing" in scare quotes, indicating that its usage is not generally accepted. --Martin (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. Non-notable event that generated little media attention blown up out of proportion by Wikipedians who want to highlight it. Among other thing, the article is against WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP (the line that mentions living persons without a reliable source). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - as one of the two wikipedians that gave the lecture - the article is grossly misrepresenting the event, starting from misspelling my name and mistaking my title and experience and ending with a clear NPOV violation of putting me and Amichai interests on the same line with My Israel's ones. We went there to give a lecture and a crash course about how to edit on Wikipedia, talking about half the time about NPOV, notability issues etc. The course's point was to teach people how to join the Wikipedia community as important contributors - not as political ones. Havelock (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:NOT#NEWS. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable article that can be expanded by many reliable sources.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in anything like form at inititation of this afd For what is there currently, than Yesha Council is probably the appropriate place and there is something said there already. There is the like of the CAMERA incident which means that something could be constructed looking at how multiple groups have sought to recruit Wikipedia editors. However, until this is sufficiently developed to justify a WP:Summary style-type split then in should be lumped with other Hasbara in that article. If there is enough about stuff targeted at Wikipedia specifically to justify an article on Zionist efforts against us, then there needs to be care to avoid WP:SYN in connecting several incidents to build a pattern that is not specifiically described in the sources. I can't helping feeling that there must be some academic sources on the trend of political groups wanting to use Wikipedia to advance their ideas and this might justify a broader article on the whole issue not just covering Zionist efforts.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Havelock Avi (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yesha Council, following the CAMERA precedent. One swallow does not a summer make; some in the press love to speculate and generalize this incident to "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" in general, but Wikipedia itself should not succumb to suspicion and intuition over reliable sources. Quigley (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if anything, add a few of the sources to Criticism of Wikipedia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ For now, we have a number of sources on the Yesha Council issue, we also have sources on the CAMERA affair, there may be others that I am not aware of. The self-reference argument does not seem applicable as the article uses independent sources exclusively. u n☯mi 18:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Quigley. Aside from that the name is simply awful. At least the Haaretz article put 'Zionit editing' between quotes. None of this here. Cower before the evil Zionists, puny mortals! Poliocretes (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite as Organised political editing on Wikipedia including this, CAMERA, the EEML stuff, and any other occurrences I'm unaware of. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 20:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference between CAMERA and EEML is that CAMERA was an external group that entered Wikipedia, while EEML was an internal group of existing wikipedians who decided to communicate externally.The EEML was not news worthy, so WP:1E applies to some degree. --Martin (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organizer of EEML entered Wikipedia the day after the Bronze Nights, so an argument can be made that it was political from the start. Sourcing may however be insufficient to write about EEML. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The EEML included Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, Latvian, Estonian and Polish editors who were all Wikipedians before they joined the EEML, so I don't see any real correlation between the events of the Bronze Nights that occurred in 2007 and the creation of the EEML in 2009. However some say that external organisations like SAFKA do have people editing Wikipedia according to the organisation's published political manifesto, thus there is an argument that SAFKA has more in common with CAMERA, than EEML does. So certainly SAFKA could be added to an article about political groups editing Wikipedia given the right sourcing. --Martin (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both SAFKA, CAMERA and EEML fit well under Organised political editing on Wikipedia. There are no published sources for EEML, though. I do know of a couple published sources on organized politically motivated editing in German Wikipedia. After all, that's what some want to introduce here, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the EEML fits. Unlike the EEML, both SAFKA and CAMERA are organised committees with a formal published charter or manifesto, CAMERA being legally incorporation as a Non-profit organization for tax reasons, while SAFKA's status as a tax entity appears to be more nebulous; they probably have some source of funds to maintain its activities. At the very least SAFKA members self fund their public protest actions. EEML on the other hand, had no organisational structure, no charter, and no funds. In fact you could probably put 3 EEMLers in to a room and get 4 opinions. it was simply a maillist a disparate group of Wikipedians joined in order to bitch about other Wikipedians and canvas AfD's. --Martin (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Per Andrensath above. u n☯mi 20:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Andrensath above. The current title makes me cringe; even if it's kept perfectly neutral I can't shake the connotations of "The vast Zionist conspiracy to steal our wikis!" and it would be source of conflict. Organised political editing on Wikipedia is a good, neutral title and there is enough material/incidents on it for an article. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite some usable examples of non-Zionist organised political editing on Wikipedia? (EEML was rejected above as receiving no commentary outside of Wiki) It wouldn't be very neutral to have an article with that title that only included Zionist examples.

Quigley (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more as I find them :Scientology,Wikiscanner covers Congress and the CIA, there's the Israeli Foreign Ministry(haven't seen anything except from EI on this so extra verification is probably a good call)Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the JIDF but most of their organised efforts on Wikipedia have been just concerned with the article about themselves and its not absolutely clear whether its just one guy and his socks doing the work or whether there's a bunch of meatpuppets involved who only become active when they receive alerts.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand it if possible. This is a very interesting perspective about organized ideological and/or political editing of Wikipedia articles (it happened before by CIA, corporations etc). Besides, the article is pretty well referenced.--Tussna (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC) — Tussna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't you referring to the cases of WikiScanner finding that individual IPs belonging to corporations, government agencies, etc. made edits for which they would have a conflict of interest? Those are not examples of organised if political editing. Quigley (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(another) comment - you're talking about merging the article or renaming it to something of the likes of 'organized editing' etc. but can some one please show me where does it says that this is an organized editing effort? The course was only an organized seminar about how to edit Wikipedia. Are there any evidence that there is an attempt (never mind actual execution) to organize and\or coordinate the actual editing? All I showed them was how to edit - the decisions regarding how, when, what and where (not to mention whether they like to edit) is every person's own to make. This is not an organized editing effort. Havelock (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the Haaretz article on this: 'The organizers' aim was twofold: to affect Israeli public opinion by having people who share their ideological viewpoint take part in writing and editing for the Hebrew version, and to write in English so Israel's image can be bolstered abroad.' Combined with the hot-air balloon trip prize mentioned by both Haaretz and the Grauniad, which implies a degree of WP:Outing, in that there has to be some way to prove which meatspace individual made certain edits for the prize to be awarded, this certainly is an organised editing effort. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 13:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'The organizers' refers to the convention, and there is no indication that after the convention there is any attempt to organize or coordinate the contributions. Even with the contest it's a leap - much more logical to think that it will conform to the standard way of wiki contests (at least at Hebrew Wikipedia) where entrants need to submit their articles to judgement by their selected wikipedian peers. To imply that some one is organizing the actual editing is original research, at the very least until any rules of the contest are to be published (after all for now all we have is a deceleration that such a contest will come to pass, but no date or specifics). Havelock (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand it if possible. Important topic that needs article of it's own. Tec15 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is an article on this in The Guardian, suggesting notability (precedent dictates that media coverage constitutes notability), furthermore this is a fairly reliable source from which to reference the article. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article could do with expanding, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ANTICIPATION. A course on how to edit Wikipedia is not inherently notable, and most such courses (there have been college courses teaching students to edit; a course for folks at the NIH on how to edit wikipedia; a course at the NY public library to teach library patrons how to become editors) do not have wikipedia articles. Mention of this course belongs, if anywhere, at Yesha Council, where there's already a section on this topic. If there turns out to be persistent media coverage that would make this course independently notable, it would be easier to rewrite the thing from scratch than to work with what's there already, because the current article is absolutely horrendous and a crime against WP:NPOV. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's now made the New York Times. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename A NYT article ^^ adds even further to reasons to keep it. -184.32.65.142 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is that NYT link a blog or article?--Commander Keane (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog named "The Lede" by Robert Mackey; it's for breaking news. Quigley (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikipedia article, with Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America story and any other organize attempts to influence which have sufficient WP:RS. Merge to Criticism of Wikipedia if there's too much resistance in main article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-story. As emerged during the CAMERA issue, there are also Palestinian groups (inside and outside Wikipedia) who have been doing this for some time. Further, I've yet to see any evidence that theey did any more than teach a bunch of people how to edit Wikipedia. If that is the case, then will we open a page every time a school uses wikipedia in class and teaches students how to edit? I thought we were encouraging that? There is an assumption of bad faith here about the activity itself - which is worrying. The attempt to have a page on it actually feeds into political activism from the other direction. Oboler (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oboler, could you dig up any of these articles on Palestinian groups? That would really help balance an article on "Organized Partisan Wikipedia Editing", if such a thing ends up existing. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - this is all about Yesha Council, a page which has a section on this already. Keep the redirect for steering silly people - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, keep the name of the article and expand the article with the CAMERA case. The topic is important. --202.75.49.141 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's not intersting and encouraging vandalism to make wikipedia not NPOV. Basically the article fails notability and encourages malicious behaviour --Lookingthrough (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is not significant enough to warrant a separate article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NAVEL. Really bad idea for an article. Robofish (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Zionist editing on Wikipedia" gets 4 130 hits on Google. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would this formulation change your mind?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your formalation would not change my mind, any more than this formulation: "Michael Jackson" -Michael -Jackson -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more relevant search if you wish to exclude references on Wikipedia. The count now is over 12,000: not that this justifies anything but at least it refutes the point made above by Brewcrewer. ::Aa42john (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ynhockey. Number of google hits is not a justification to create a Wikipedia article. "Supreme Deliciousness" has 2,030 hits on google. Maybe we should start an article. I wonder what would be written there. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: wp:GHITS has the standard retort to this, but to add to that I think in this case you wouldn't expect a lot of results for "zionist editing on wikipedia," since that isn't the official name for any particular thing. It's not like the class had that title, is it? It's just a description of the phenomenon, you could describe it with a different phrase and it would be the same thing. (I think this is sort of part of the problem, but that is a separate issue.) ErikHaugen (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't surprised by the amount of hits. If you'll look at what they lead to, it's mostly pro-Palestinian blogs and frothing-at-the-mouth discussion forums like Stormfront, who will conjure up Zionist conspiracies on Wikipedia or off it. Hardly a fountain of reliable sources from which one could write a verifiable article. Quigley (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yesha Council for now. Alternative is to merge with Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#CAMERA campaign in Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is too specific, is WP:NAVEL. It belongs at best as one or two paragraphs in Criticism of Wikipedia or something like that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move/rewrite - Organised political editing on Wikipedia makes some sense to me. Criticism of Wikipedia is very long and the wider theme of political editing would be a reasonable spin-off (it's a topic that has got e.g. press and - if I recall correctly - research attention) but the subtopic of "Zionist" editing is too narrow. TheGrappler (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? Let's start articles on "Palestinian editing on Wikipedia" or "Nazi editing on Wikipedia" or "Peta editing on Wikipedia." The title is offensive because it uses "Zionist" as a pejorative, and virtually all of the content is either irrelevant to the topic or *maybe* belongs in their pertinent articles. I won't be shocked when reactionary editors decide to respond with "Anti-Zionists editing on Wikipedia." Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism on Wikipedia. Who here wants to click that red link and make it red? ;) Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title "Zionist editing ...." was used because that was the headline of the Haaretz article that first initiated this page. I resent the accusation of antisemitism. (It was I who started the article.) If it is a poor heading, I attribute it to Haaretz! Aa42john (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However Haaretz placed the phrase "Zionist editing" in scare quotes. I think without the scare quotes the phrase gives the title a different meaning to that intended by the Haaretz article. --Martin (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, calm down, nobody accused you of antisemitism. And I call all involved parties in this debate to assume good faith, avoid inflammatory language and act with restraint. Marokwitz (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was accusing no one of anything. It was a joke. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until someone can make a case for Organised political editing on Wikipedia or another similar name per TheGrappler. I'm curious to see how watered down

this issue gets when we see what else like this is happening in the world. --Shuki (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important topic. Reliable sources. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No proof of notability. We're not about to have an article about every ~fifty people having a one-day course, even if it teaches how to write in Wikipedia. ליאור • Lior (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources discuss these multiple, ongoing efforts, and that establishes notability. – OhioStandard (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think political campaigns to instill POV into WP are WP:NOTABLE, and a number of reliable news outlets would agree. NickCT (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Carrite. Also, blown up out of proportion by the Usual Suspects™. There's definitely room to mention noteworthy events in more generic articles though, as was mentioned above. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per arguments above. The current title most definitely cannot stay. Or, going by the first sentence of the article (oh, oh, sarcasm coming) - "a phenomenon which some say exists" - I say move it to Yeti (Zionist).radek (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly someone have added that sentence you mentioned above and removed other relevant info, I will try to fix it in a couple of days.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per above. Basket of Puppies 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Zionist(?!) editing on Wikipedia"? Is 'Zionist' a disease or something? Should I take a medicine? Should we move Israel article to "Zionist entity"? In short, the title is offensive and non neutral; we should be cautious in creating self referencing articles and create such articles in very rare and outstanding cases only; the subject is not notable outside wikipedia even if it was referenced in reliable sources; the incident itself is 'much ado about nothing'; it may be mentioned in a more generic article such as political editing on Wikipedia but it cannot stand alone as it is. Noon (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This article currently has four reliable sources. There are other articles in Wikipedia that exist with fewer sources than that. That being said, a merge with Yesha Council with a redirect from this article would probably work for now also. One more mention of this topic in another major newspaper or similar source would seem to me to establish clear notability. Cla68 (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NY Times reporter Robert Mackey's August 23rd edition of his blog, The Lede, includes some updated information on this story, along with a disturbing graphic created by myisrael.org, that will anger any editor who cares about neutrality here, regardless of their overall position on I/P issues. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They've been doing that stuff for a while now.~--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image I called attention to with the Israeli flag superimposed on the Wikipedia's logo implies an organization's desire to take over Wikipedia on behalf of Israel, and that image was created by that organization itself, viz. "My Israel". The image you called attention to is certainly ugly and offensive as well, but it's not analogous. It would have been analogous if it had been created by Muslims about Muslim political aims, e.g. if it had used a Star and Crescent instead of a Star of David. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - to Organised political editing on Wikipedia, per Andrensath above. This particular incident is not notable enough for its own article, but collected with Scientology, CAMERA, Jewish Internet Defense Force, etc, it would be notable. --Noleander (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Stagg

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

De prodded, but the external link doesn't actually say anything about her, and neither does anything else. She only ever played this one role, and because it was pre-internet, there's nothing out there. A brief mention in the Adrian Mole article would suffice. Chris (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress, lacks independent sources as required by WP:N and WP:BIO. --Jayron32 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are available,[33][34] so their lack is not a reason to delete if they can be added through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No sources and nothing to show any reason to keep. Jmlk 1 7 06:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are available,[35][36] so their lack is not a reason to delete if they can be added through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to meet WP:ENT with significant roles in two related productions. Sources are available,[37][38] so their lack is not a reason to delete if they can be added through the course of regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yup... the article is in bad shape. So? Seems that is per guideline a surmountable issue. I note that she was in two seperate but related television series: The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4 (7 episodes, 1985-1987), and The Growing Pains of Adrian Mole (6 episodes, 1987). The character of Pandora Braithwaite is a significant role in both these related productions, and her playing a significant role in these two productions squeeks by WP:ENT as multiple... and her part is still being covered in reliable sources even 22 years after the series has ended.[39][40]. Seems she has made it into the enduring record. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, find me something that gives one bit of verifiable biographical information. Chris (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough request. I'll be getting to it later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles P. Gotwals

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

stray article mentioning a JAG officer on General Eisenhower's ETO staff; he left a box of papers at the Eisenhower Library consisting of "Stay Behind" copies of various orders. The external link in the article goes to the Library's Archivist's listing of the papers and nothing more. The article has been tagged for some 18 months with no subsequent activity. S. Rich (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomSadads (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my searches only found passing mentions, not enough to satisfy sourcing requirements, I feel. Also as a military person, the subject does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MILPEOPLE. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:MILPEOPLE.

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

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

The result was delete as the rough consensus and weight of arguments for deletion incidate. –MuZemike 22:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NCast Corporation

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

No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wrong. There is a reference to an Editor's Choice award by a national magazine for one of the company's products. This is a factual article about an existing Silicon Valley company in the Telecommunications arena. Fits at least five related categories. Does a company have to win some kind of popularity contest to be included in Wikipedia? -- hankm (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been upgraded to reference a product placement at a very prestigious university in India in competition with major industry players. The non-NPOV rules prohibit adding customer lists which would make the company appear to be more notable. Also, two additional references added. --hankm (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source on the article does not establish notability, it simply establishes existence. Existence is not notability. I'm finding no third-party sources on Google that establish any notability. The founder seems to be notable, but that doesn't make his organization notable. Fails WP:ORG. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This calls itself a designer and manufacturer of high resolution digital video recording and streaming products. The article's sole claim to notability is that the Telepresenter M3-Series 2 was named a "Top 100 Product" by District Administration Magazine in February, 2008. If that's notability then I am Marie of Roumania. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of the Northeastern United States

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

This article is just a collection of memories. There's no credible assertion that such a cuisine exists; there are many fine articles about the cuisines of better defined places. PhGustaf (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely redundant to Cuisine of New England, which also has some notability issues to work out apparently, but is on much better footing than this one. Lumping in NY, Jersey, and the Mid-Atlantic cuisines into New England's was a bit of an odd grouping anyways, they can go find their own article. :) Tarc (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, as this topic is already sufficiently covered in other articles. Deor (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overinclusive and redundant. Cuisines of areas within the region are already covered by other articles. It is difficult to justify this large area as having a distinctive, regionally uniform cuisine. Instead, there are many classes of cuisines within this region. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home Shopping Network themes and cues

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

Contested prod. Just a list of songs supposedly played on HSN. Pure OR and unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete One of the reasons for Jeopardy01's constant editing of this article? "Names will change due to names I made up" We don't deal in the odd fascinations of editors who should really go outside and stop watching the Home Shopping Network all day to catalog their completely generic production music and post made-up titles of Jeopardy episodes. Even the worst of NickCruft and Cartoon Network cruft has never been this eye-rollingly inane. There is no reason for this to exist at all. Nate • (chatter) 09:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) Delete. I was expecting some smart OR analysis of how these capitalist sharks lure simple-minded housewives into buying more and more exercise machines... what a disappointment. You ruined my day. East of Borschov 10:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is WP:OR and unencyclopedic trivia. I can't see any way this can be improved into a reasonable encyclopedic list.--Beloved Freak 09:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable topic and appears to be completely fabricated by the author. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Road Chapel

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

fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG or whatever other notability guidelines users want to pull out of the magician's hat. Ironholds (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable chapel. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete While this would be a delightful subject for the local historical society, I'm afraid it does not meet notability requirements. I was unable to locate significant 3rd party coverage. Dloh cierekim 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most churches aren't notable and most businesses aren't either. Neither the original church, nor the modern chapel fit the criterion for notability. St Anselm (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable building, and it seems to be more of a disguised advertisment for a wedding chapel business. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reer hobshoole

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

I found no mention of hoobsoole on google, neither of Qudhbadin Bin Faqi Umar. unsourced Melaen (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the first draft of the article on userpage has some sort of reference: Bibliography: R.Burton, first footstep in East Africa or the Exploration of Harar(london,1894),vol,I p193 dunno if it helps.--Melaen (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant hoax, no hits outside this article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no mention of this anywhere not derived from this Wikipedia article. Probably hoax, but in any case not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the above "First+footsteps+in+East+Africa,+or,+An+exploration+of+Harar,+Volume+1"&hl=en&ei=8ENtTPfAEsWBlAfhvL3YDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hoobshoole&f=false reference on Google and did not find the subject mentioned there. "Reer Hobshoole" looks Dutch. Dloh cierekim 14:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll assume good faith and not cry "vandalism!" Could not find a meaning for R H in Dutch. Dloh cierekim 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the spelling is "Reer hoobshoole" in the article. Dloh cierekim 15:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isolation (Alter Bridge song)

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

From the deleted prod: Fails WP:NSONG, not currently release, unsourced. Eeekster (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the recording doesnt exist, it should be eligible for a speedy delete under a9. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ("is rumored" is in the article). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the recording has not been released or leaked and no official info on the song exists. Bobertoq (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Rodino

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

insufficent claims of notability, sorry Melaen (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria, although I'll happily change my !vote if I'm wrong. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources to estblish notability. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H. John Heinz IV

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of article. The earlier AfD ended in a keep because "coverage was available", but unfortunately, Googling shows that coverage is often contradictory (such as one claiming he is a "Buddhist educator" and another saying he "married into a political family" when the Post article says he makes medieval armor and married a nutritionist). Very few are RS, and the reasoning behind all the articles on him no matter where they are is because his father/family was rich, or he's the stepson of John Kerry, not because he is notable in his own right. In conjunction with the fact that no improvements were made to the article since the last AfD, it's still a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established outside of the company he keeps. Notability is not inherited. Cindamuse (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable by himself, notability is truly not inherited by affinity. Bearian'sBooties 03:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Notability is not inherited. The only claim to notability seems to be being related to notable people. --Crunch (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing fascism

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to be a synthesis of sometimes contradictory statements made by different authors. Should either be merged with Fascism or Fascism (epithet) or deleted as there is no comprehensive ideology called "Left-wing facsism". Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article describes a term that is in common usage, is researched, and is notable. I can't really see why it was renominated in the first place. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not a coherent concept. Each of the four writers who are cited using the term use completely divergent meanings. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis; the sources can't agree on what the term means. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three or more different definitions of an ideology doesn't make a comprehensive, clear ideology. Merge with Fascism, if notable enough. --UNSC Trooper (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - What next, right-wing communism? All it is is a minor neologism, create a small mention at Fascist (epithet) and redirect this to there. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV trojan horse. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - synthesis. I could see a short paragraph on this at Fascist (epithet), but it does not rate more than that. Blueboar (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is properly sourced analysis of a commonly used term to describe the use emulation by the left-wing of certain elements of facism. While this article is certainly controversial, that alone does not justify its deletion. I'm not sure why this article has been nominated for deletion again. Regarding Tarc comparison to "Right-wing Communism" - it is not valid because that term has not been commonly used (or used at all, to the best of my knowledge).(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
I was pointing out the absurdity of the concept; it is just a trivial insult that makes about as much real-world sense as my suggestion does. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of references in published sources for a useful article, it really isn't that hard to find. For example, this one seems like a pretty definitive source. Ofcourse this article can be improved, but I'm gobsmacked it is being considered for deletion. --Martin (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rewrite - plenty of resources but non-coherent. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and re-write - as Martin rightly pointed out, there are plenty of scholarly sources for this topic. I agree, though, that the current state of the article is not satisfactory. But what we have is just a beginning, the term is valid. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article deals solely with a pejorative, which is generally a bad article subject basis for wikipedia. That said, there has been leftwing (in a relative sense that is, just like there was a Right Opposition in the communist movement) tendencies inside the fascist movement. That would be an interesting subject, but I'm not sure 'leftwing fascism' is the apt name for such an article (also, National Syndicalism, Strasserism, National Bolshevism, etc. largely covers this field). --Soman (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it is substantiated then it should remain irrespective of what we might think of the worth or the subject (or the quality of the writing). My reading of the article is that it was not refering to National Bolshevism or is in away relating to fascism as generally understood. If we delete this then why not islamofascism, isn't that equally a pejorative and not really about fascism as generally understood?--Utinomen (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a common perjorative. It's certainly valid to have an article discussing a perjorative such as this, there's more to write than a mere dictionary entry. TheGrappler (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of the concept in the RW may sometimes be incoherent, which leads to a certain amount of inevitable confusion in writing about it, but it is notable none the less and very adequately sourced. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ShareVantage

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

Advertisement for non-notable company; PRODded by one editor (not me) and PROD seconded by another editor (also not me); PROD notice removed without explanation by article creator. TJRC (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for reasons explained by TJRC. Wikispan (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. A web-based software service that apparently generates legal forms. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a marketing attempt by a single-issue editor. Sources added to the article are not significant, and I have not found any significant coverage in reliable third-parties. Haakon (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss, Hello. This article has been suggested for deletion a couple times now, and after reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines, I think I understand why. I have included additional external references, and I no longer believe the information can be mistaken for marketing documentation. That was never my intention, and I apologize if it came across that way. Are there any problems with the article in its current state? Another question: Why is this article less notable than "ShareFile"?

Coloradorocket (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Coloradorocket[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kyte (journalist)

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, a journalist/author, to sufficiently establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 01:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You could've saved yourself some effort and just prod'ed. Did you notice the subject edited his article (COI) in 2007? Lionel (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blanked by author Acroterion _(talk) 01:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents at HSN

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

Don't know where to start. Seems to be POV, cites no sources, and makes controversial claims. I don't think this falls in with the scope of lists on the project and if there is any reliable information in the article perhaps it should be moved to the main HSN article. Thoughts? Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Random accumulation of trivia. Imagine this article were entitled "Traffic Accidents on Burnside Avenue, Portland, Oregon." A similar list could be compiled. What would you say about that? Carrite (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene Keeler

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject, a poet and columnist, to sufficiently establish notability. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Obviously fails WP:AUTHOR JeremyMcClean (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we sure we're using the right name? If she really writes for The New Yorker, she might be a weak keep, as some of her other credits are rather prestigious journal Vartanza (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Towers Group

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

Many companies with a similar name. Can't find any information about this specific organization. Reads like advert spam. I'll withdraw if good sources can be found, but I currently feel it's not notable. Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Vague and uninformative advertising: The company's original charter was IT Consulting specializing in the financial industry. As the organization evolved, its core business kept up with emerging technologies. Currently, the consulting services offered include the implementation and design of virtualized environments and cloud based computing. About the only thing that could make such a business notable is a juicy public scandal. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johns Hopkins Spring Fair

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

Non-notable student fair. GrapedApe (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obviously a marketing ploy. JeremyMcClean (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are differing pluralities within this discussion that, when taken with "uninvolved" editors, point to a lack of consensus to delete this article, but also a lack of consensus to keep the article in its current form. The nominator adopted an editor's proposal to move the article to the book's title and re-write, but that position cannot be said to have achieved consensus. Further complicating matters is the Arbcom involvement, which has resulted in topic bans for some of the editors commenting here. With respect to the bans, I did consider them in evaluating the discussion, here, but it did not affect my conclusion. Further discussion on the talk page should focus on how to reorganize this content in an appropriate manner. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snyderman and Rothman (study)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is about a little known advocacy paper that became a book advocating a point of view, the writing of which was supported by grants from politically oriented foundations. The article exists as a POV fork and does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for articles about books, but rather is an attempt to put undue weight on a non-neutral point of view into Wikipedia article text. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AFD seems pretty disingenuous. This study is not described as an “advocacy paper that became a book advocating a point of view, the writing of which was supported by grants from politically oriented foundations” in the secondary sources which discuss it, a good sampling of which are currently cited by the article. These citations were mostly added to the article by Mathsci, who is about as far from a pro-hereditarian editor as it’s possible for anyone to be, so there’s next to no chance that the selection of sources is biased in favor of this viewpoint. Only one of the study’s 48 questions addressed the topic of the cause of the racial IQ gap, and the accompanying book devotes a similarly small amount of space to anything that could be considered “advocacy.”

WeijiBaikeBianji nominated this article for deletion exactly eight minutes after reverting my most recent edit to it; an edit which he’s also refusing to discuss on the talk page, despite my comments there that it isn’t reasonable for him to revert edits to an article if he’s unwilling to address the justification that’s being provided for them. In other words, this AFD is basically acting as a substitute for discussion about edits to the article that WeijiBaikeBianji disagrees with, but that for some reason he isn’t willing to discuss in talk. It’s especially problematic that this should occur while race and intelligence and all related articles (which includes this one) are currently under arbitration.

Regarding the claim that this article is a POV fork: it’s about a study and book that reached (among many conclusions) a conclusion that’s controversial. Wikipedia probably has hundreds of articles about books that present unpopular ideas, including books that present controversial race-related conclusions such as The Bell Curve, books that contain flat-out racism such as Mein Kampf, as well as everything in between. This doesn’t make these articles POV forks of anything unless they presents the books’ conclusions as necessarily correct, which this article doesn’t. And I think Varoon Arya and I already addressed the issue of notability in this article’s previous AFD. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam, you accuse WeijiBaikeBianji of bad faith above. Do note however that they could have waited till after arbcom had topic banned you and davidkane from r&i articles - broadly construed - (as is likely to happen). You should appreciate the fact that they did not. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I’m glad that if he was going to nominate the article for deletion, he would do it now rather than waiting for a time when David.Kane and I are unable to participate here. But what would be best of all is if he were willing to discuss his reverts instead of trying to resolve the issue with an AFD, don’t you agree? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do see WeijiBaikeBianji discussing deletion here. His (assuming WeijiBaikeBianji is male) focusing on notability and deletion seems fair since deletion is what he's arguing for. Also, further down, I note some discussion of sources. On the face of it (I can't comment on the specifics of the reversions you mention) it appears that WeijiBaikeBianji is acting in complete good faith. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark, thank you for assuming good faith and checking the time sequence to reach your correct conclusion on why this nomination for deletion was timed as it was. I could see that there were POV disputes on the talk page of the article, and I could see that the ban hammer was about to strike the editor who made the last preceding revert as I made this AfD nomination (as I had given notice I might do earlier on the article talk page). I could also see that another editor who entered into talk page discussion on POV of that article and who has spoken up here for keeping the article was similarly about to be banned. I was in no hurry, but when I saw the revert of sourced content by a party to the current Arbitration Committee case happen as the case was about to be decided, I thought it was a courtesy to all concerned to post this AfD nomination right away, to give everyone an opportunity to be heard. (P.S. Yes, I am male, so you may refer to me in the third person as "he.") -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The study doesn't appear to be notable. I see 22 entries on google, 4 of which are clearly wikipedia mirrors, and only one on google scholar. Looking at the previous AFD, I note that the notability was questioned but no substantive evidence of notability was provided. (That particular AfD was closed as 'no consensus'.) Since the study is non-notable, and appears likely to be a POV fork, I suggest it be deleted. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: Could you explain where the study is a POV fork from? David.Kane (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, it appears to be a fork off of Media portrayal of race and intelligence created by User:Futurebird: 03:39, 8 February 2007 [41]. Media portrayal of race and intelligence currently just points to Race and intelligence and was created as a fork off of that article by User:Nectarflowed: 09:03, 1 January 2006 [42] aprock (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t say either way whether this article really started out as a POV fork of Media portrayal of race and intelligence, since I wasn’t involved in these articles yet back when that article existed. But seeing as it no longer exists, I don’t see why that’s an argument for deleting the current article. It’s customary to delete one side of a POV fork rather than both sides, and in this case the other side of the fork has already been deleted. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David asked what it was a fork of. I did some research and answered. That is all. aprock (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: Could you provide a link for the claim that there is "only one on google scholar?" This link, cited below, shows 117 references. Given that, would you like to revise your vote? David.Kane (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David.Kane, the google scholar results that I looked at are at [43]. As you can see, there is only one link included in the results. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several problematic claims in the description above. First, how is this article an "advocacy paper?" The paper was originally published in the (highly regarded) American Psychologist. I can't recall ever seeing an "advocacy paper" published in this journal. Second, is there a problem with a "book advocating a point of view?" Any book worth reading (or worth writing a Wikipedia article about) advocated a point of view. Third, the "article exists as a POV fork." From what article is this a POV fork? I have followed much of the discussions on the Talk page and can't recall that claim ever having been made. Please tell us what article (that existed before this article) is the other side of the fork. Fourth, what POV is this article advocating? (And why not simply fix the article itself?) Fifth, the study/book is obviously notable: the necessary "multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" are listed in the references to the article itself! David.Kane (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, you asked an informational question about editorial policies of American Psychologist, a publication for members of the American Psychological Association. Last Thursday I was visiting an academic library out of town, and I happened to photocopy the "Editorial Statement of the American Psychologist: II"^[1] that appears in volume 42, just one issue before the Snyderman and Rothman article^[2] that I photocopied the previous weekend. I have since found that same editorial statement in an online database, and have found preceding (1986)^[3] and following (1988)^[4] annual statements of editorial policy by the same editor. The editor, Leonard D. Goodstein, made clear that he intended to publish articles that are interesting and understandable ("not so arcane")^[5] for a broad range of readers who are members of the American Psychological Association. In his first statement (1986), he said, "Articles reporting primary empirical research findings are not appropriate for the American Psycholgist."^[6] Goodstein pointed out that such articles should be submitted to Psychological Bulletin, the same journal that published James R. Flynn's pathbreaking paper^[7] while Goodstein was editing American Psychologist. A reader of American Psychologist asked Goodstein if he really meant to exclude articles "reporting primary empirical research findings"^[8] and Goodstein replied^[9] that the policy of American Psychologist only rarely accepting articles with primary research data had been in effect for many years. Goodstein said a possible exception to that policy would be for "information concerning the state of psychology in general."^[9] So perhaps Snyderman and Rothman (1987)^[2] was not an empirical study at all, or perhaps it was only published in American Psychologist because, as the authors wrote, the article advocated that "the expert voice be heard in the public arena,"^[10] in other words that psychologists should do more advocating on behalf of their occupation. David, that's why I referred to the article as an advocacy paper, because reliable sources showed me that it was. You additionally asked why I haven't already edited the Wikipedia article Snyderman_and_Rothman_(study) (here nominated for deletion) to fix its POV problems. That is because of the announced intention of another editor[44] to revert sourced content if he just doesn't like it. I see the Wikipedia article, today, doesn't even mention Snyderman and Rothman's acknowledgement^[11] that they received help in developing their survey from Richard Herrnstein, which suggests that now the Wikipedia article doesn't even reflect editors having read Snyderman and Rothman's original paper. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator --Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move and rewrite (changed position of nominator as of 25 August 2010) I nominated this article for deletion to uphold Wikipedia policy. Independent rationale 1: Wikipedia has policies on articles about books. The Snyderman and Rothman opinion survey, and the article and book that resulted from the survey, have not won a major award, nor become a subject of instruction at multiple schools, nor were they produced by authors who are so historically significant themselves that any work of theirs is notable. Nor does the article content (the survey, the article, or the book) appear as a subjectnote to Wikipedia guideline "of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." A claim that the article subject meets Wikipedia guidelines must therefore be based on a claim that the survey (and then the article and then the book) "has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a . . . political . . . movement," which is the only applicable criterion here. I have asked on the article talk page for affirmative evidence of that before nominating this article for deletion. It's dubious that this is such a significant survey, article, or study. I know many published sources about the broader subjects surrounding the subject of the survey, and in most published sources the survey gets no more than a passing mention, or no mention at all.
Independent rationale 2: Wikipedia policy disfavors content forks and especially disfavors point-of-view forks. If it can be shown by reliable sources that the article subject made significant contribution to a political movement, that raises the delicate issue of neutral point of view in developing the article content. Assuming good faith, I note that editor Futurebird appears to have created the article on 7 February 2007 to expose political bias in a source relied on for editing the Race and intelligence article, which is now the subject of a current Arbitration Committee case. On that case's proposed decision page, Wikipedians can observe proposed findings of fact about the first and the second editors to object to deletion here. I note that the previous discussion of deletion of this article, which did not reach consensus, included several parties to the current ArbCom case, and that most of the editing of the article has been done by those parties, with continual failure to achieve consensus on point of view for the article. All this is strong evidence that the article is a POV fork and can only remain a POV fork, and thus should be deleted by Wikipedia policy.
Note that the two rationales for deleting the article, that it never met policy for an article about a book in the first place, and that it constitutes a POV fork, are independent, but they are synergistic. With notability for stand-alone treatment in a Wikipedia article being legitimately in doubt, and warranted at best only by relation to political controversy, then the article's demonstrated history of triggering POV disputes among editors shows it should not be in an encyclopedia for worldwide readership with neutral point of view. (original time-stamp:) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC) (new time-stamp:) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These seems to be some confusion as to what a POV fork is. Let me quote the guideline:

In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.
Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it.

There is no way that this article is a POV fork because it was not created (and does not now function) as "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject)." There is no other "version" of the article. The subject is not discussed, in detail, in any other location on Wikipedia. There may be many reasons to delete this article, but calling it a POV fork is mistaken. David.Kane (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: I base this solely on the fact that this article is a content fork of a deleted content fork of Race and intelligence, see my comment above for details. Snyderman and Rothman (study) was forked off of Media portrayal of race and intelligence, which was forked off of Race and intelligence. Media portrayal of race and intelligence was subsequently replaced with redirect back to Race and intelligence, indicating that that fork was not particularly meaningful. aprock (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article satisfies the WP:NB criteria, because it has been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience", as anyone can ascertain from Google Scholar[45][46]. It is not a POV fork of anything, it's an independent subject. There's been a good deal of work done on the article, and a variety of viewpoints from secondary sources are present in it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, you might want to change your second link to this. I think 117 citations to the Snyderman and Rothman book (and 125 for the original paper) still satisfies WP:NB, but some of the 8,450 sources from your own link aren’t actually citing it. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Corrected.--Victor Chmara (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor, thanks for your comments. A Google Scholar search I ran reveals the names of both the article and the book, and has links under each for citations of each. My count of citations largely agrees with yours, so there is no dispute about that. So here my follow-up questions are 1) if notability can be established by some number of Google links to citations of a published work, how many citations are enough? 2) does anything else about the quality of the citations matter for establishing notability? The actual Wikipedia criteria for notability of books specify that the book must be discussed (perhaps criticized), not just cited in passing. Are you satisfied that the Snyderman and Rothman book has that many independent, possibly critical, treatments in the literature that you have surveyed? 3) Can a showing of notability nonetheless be overcome by other criteria for deletion? I gather that your statement is that the current version of the article (which I think reflects my revert of Captain Occam's most recent revert) reflects reliance on multiple sources and a reasonably neutral point of view. There seemed to be talk page disagreement on what point of view would be "neutral," and my concern was that much that I have read about the article or the book (both of which I possess in my office) has yet to be reflected in the article. I am willing to continue discussing this issue, and appreciate your reply. (Really detailed discussion of notability criteria or neutral point of view criteria would of course belong on the notice boards for those issues, not on this AfD page.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete This article was created by me when I removed non-notable material that was clogging up the Race and Intelligence article. I felt 'at most' a simple mention of this highly political study in the main article was all that was needed, but at the time, being quite new, I didn't want to delete 'anything', so I put it in its own article so that it could sink or swim on its own merits. The study is not notable, and this article is now just clutter. futurebird (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Futurebird, for your comments. (I'm not sure if Captain Occam's comments below are a reply to you, immediately above, or a reply to someone else.) As I think you have heard now, the Arbitration Committee is proposing a decision that enjoys broad consensus on the committee to deal with the mess of POV-pushing and unreliable sourcing that you observed on Race and intelligence years ago. I can respect anyone's reasons for examining the publications by Snyderman and Rothman, which have often been used to make points the publications cannot validly make. I have to say that I still think there is warrant for deleting the article entirely, while perhaps permitting either of the publications to be sources in the few Wikipedia articles to which they are relevant on the few issues for which those publications are reliable sources. Plenty of better books don't have Wikipedia articles at all. Perhaps I will have to create new articles about those, and I hope you will visit those articles with your practiced editing skills as you have time to do so. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many non-trivial citations to this book and study do you think are necessary in order to satisfy the first criterion of WP:NB? Per the links that Victor Chmara posted above, Google scholar shows 117 citations for the book and 127 for the original study. (It was 125 the day before yesterday, so apparently there have been two more of them in the past two days.) If you think that’s not enough to qualify as "multiple, non-trivial published works", you ought to explain what you think the threshold is. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly the title "Snyderman and Rothman (study)" includes the authors names and not the title of the article or the book. The article published in the journal "American Psychologist" is titled "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing" and the book is titled "The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy". Based on WP:NAME, I would think that if the article were to be kept, it should be given either of the two names and not the present name. If the title of the book were to be chosen then the article should discuss the entire book, and not just the survey portion. If the title for the survey article is chosen, then the question then becomes does this single article deserve a standalone article. Such publications are not usually given standalone articles but can be cited in other articles. This is not a problem for books as they often have standalone pages. Many will argue that this study has been cited a number of other articles. In general Wikipedians who patrol the AFD tend to be more open to studies if they have been cited. At the same time, much of the material from the survey that isn't about race is not mentioned in the article. This does give the article the appearance of a POV fork.

Basically I think the AFD should address whether this article should be a standalone or whether the material should be merged into some other article. I don't believe a full scale wipeout of this study from Wikipedia is at present feasible but I also feel that the standalone article gives too much weight, without context, to a single survey carried out 25 years ago. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wapondaponda, thanks for your comments. That's a good overview of the background to the article. I do not claim that the article and the book should not be mentioned at all on Wikipedia. They do have limited usefulness for a limited number of statements that would add useful content to a limited number of Wikipedia articles. But I'm not sure that the current article 1) is really about a notable subject for an encyclopedia with a worldwide twenty-first century readership, nor am I sure that 2) the article meets the cardinal Wikipedia principle of neutral point of view. You correctly point out that under its current name, the article also doesn't fit well with Wikipedia policy on naming articles. That's a lot of problems. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update for closing administrator This article is related to an Arbitration Committee case that has just published a final decision.

Notes

^ Goodstein 1987a, pp. 1–2
^ ^a ^b Snyderman 1987, pp. 137–144
^ Goodstein 1986, pp. 1–2
^ Goodstein 1988, p. 1
^ Goodstein 1987a, p. 1
^ Goodstein 1986, p. 2
^ Flynn 1987
^ Reznikoff 1987, pp. 188–189
^ ^a ^b Goodstein 1987b
^ Snyderman 1987, p. 144
^ Snyderman 1987, p. 138

Bibliography

Flynn, James R. (1987). "Massive IQ Gains in 14 Nations: What IQ Tests Really Measure". Psychological Bulletin. 101 (2): 171–191. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171.
Goodstein, Leonard D. (January 1986). "Editorial statement of the American Psychologist". American Psychologist. 41 (1). American Psychological Association: 1–2. doi:10.1037/h0092058. ISSN 0003-066X.
Goodstein, Leonard D. (January 1987a). "Editorial Statement of the American Psychologist: II". American Psychologist. 42 (1). American Psychological Association: 1–2. doi:10.1037/h0092014. ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
Goodstein, Leonard D. (February 1987b). "Comment on AP Editorial Statement: Reply to Reznikoff" (PDF). American Psychologist. 42 (2). American Psychological Association: 189. doi:10.1037/h0092027. ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 23 August 2010.
Goodstein, Leonard D. (January 1988). "Editorial Statement of the American Psychologist: III". American Psychologist. 43 (1). American Psychological Association: 1. doi:10.1037/h0091930. ISSN 0003-066X.
Reznikoff, Marvin (February 1987). "Comment on AP Editorial Statement". American Psychologist. 42 (2). American Psychological Association: 188–189. doi:10.1037/h0092028. ISSN 0003-066X.
Snyderman, Mark; Rothman, Stanley (February 1987). "Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing" (PDF). American Psychologist. 42 (2): 137–144. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.137. ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 22 August 2010.

Move to the book title which will have the advantage of being able to use reviews of the book for references, and re-write the article, which seems written to highlight the particular conclusion, not describe it--I note the non-standard use of large type, which is very strongly discouraged for use in articles in Wikipedia; extensive use of highlighted or displayed quotes is a characteristic of POV and promotional articles. This is one of the cases where stating the article over might have some advantages. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominating editor for this AfD, I change my position to support this suggestion. The article will have to be rewritten almost from scratch, but a move at least preserves a few of the useful secondary sources that are already cited in the article. Thanks for the suggestion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable study with considerable non-trivial positive and negative reactions. --Dezidor (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BYB = Bettering Young Breeders

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Neologism. Dictionary definition of non-notable acronym. Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up word. No sources and mention on any search engine. --Stickee (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NNN = Non-Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete JeremyMcClean Nothing notable, not even a hit on google. (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunatly, there is no speedy criteria for this type of article but it can be snowed to death. Fails pretty much all 5 pillars of Wikipedia; Too much to specify.Pmedema (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was a speedy criteria. I thought afd might have been faster than a prod on the off chance that it was contested.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MADEUP. Chris (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and it is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Carman

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

There may be 1 article (paper) that asserts that a band which Carman was in had a high selling single; if so, the band may be notable, but Carman is not. There are currently no valid citations in the article--all of the previous citations failed to mention Carman's name. Even if the information here were verified, I don't believe Carman himself meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC (it is slightly possible his band Heartland meets WP:MUSIC--note that this is not the same Heartland as Heartland). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent some quality time trying to make this article be worthy of WP:MUSIC but after trimming a good deal of the peacock prose, and fact-tagging the puffery, I realized that what was left was too weak to stand. I kept expecting to find a Billboard article about Carman, or his name listed at NARAS, CMA, GMA, BMI or even the Law Enforcement Officer's Hall of Fame, but I have been coming up empty. It appears he is a yeoman, a worker, a spear carrier; attendant at some notable moments but not notable himself. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The primary author of the article posted the following on the article's talk page (s/he seems to be new to Wikipedia, so I'm cross-posting it here): "Please allow this article to remain deleted. we are gathering the necessary data for verificayion. We were not really aware of the criteria for citations. So, we are seeking the assistance of someone more familiar with wikipedia guidelines. (Marknalma (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC))." (diff for confirmation: ]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMark_Carman&action=historysubmit&diff=379719274&oldid=379713112]) I've offered some advice on the same page for the author as s/he goes forward. Also, could the closing admin, assuming this is deleted, move the page to a sub-page in [[User:Marknalma]'s namespace? That way s/he could keep working on the article and try to bring it up to snuff rather than having to start afresh. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fast-5 Diet

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

Not sure what to make of this. I believe that the author is Bert W. Herring himself: thentor.com is a website that he made. I also have concerns with notability. I appreciate the reports (or an effort to find them) but find ultimately the COI-SPA and notability concerns too much. The New Raymie (t • c) 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be speedyable G4 because it had been speedied in April. The New Raymie (t • c) 02:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G4 only applies to pages previously deleted by a deletion discussion (like this AfD). Speedy and PROD deletions are excluded. However, in some cases, the previous tag may apply. ℳono 02:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source seems to establish notability. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree. Note that: a) his book is self-published, b) the comments seem like a stuffed ballot box, and c) this is a local article not unlike something I'd read in the Arizona Living section of The Arizona Republic. I recently read an article in the community section about a J-pop star who lives in my home city and attends one of the local high schools (and had a camera crew follow her around) – is that human interest piece an indicator of notability? Probably the ONLY one in the English language (the official site they gave was in Japanese, etc.) but it might not stand up completely. The New Raymie (t • c) 04:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a tossup. The source would generally establish notability, and seems sufficient for a small article describing the diet. I don't really see any reason to say that the source is insufficient, but there is some wiggle room in WP for opinion on this point. I've seen a lot of articles get kept when the sourcing was only this good. And it looks like there might be other sources too even if we can't access them. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 08:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable and promotional for the book and diet plan. I'll recommend speedy delete as promotional, but I'll leave be and see if anyone agrees. No the link is not significant third party coverage. Dloh cierekim 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm seeing both sides of this. It is promotional, but it dose show some signs of notability in its sources. The problem is, I'm on the fence if the WP:RS is satisfied. Pmedema (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christopher Stasheff . NW (Talk) 23:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Warlock Enraged

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

Article about a single book which is not notable for its own article. The book is definitely not notable in my opinion. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Christopher Stasheff as article fails notability criteria for books, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems easy to find sources for this. We might merge to an article about the series but that is not a matter of deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not. Where are they? Can you find us one? It's not notable per WP:NBOOK BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation to a journal which reviews the book in question. The citation appears in the article. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I've come across this syndrome before... people think things ought to have sources, therefore say we keep an article. But they don't provide such sources, and if you search it becomes unclear that such exist... or else obvious they don't. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that commentators often don't notice sources even when they are plainly provided in the article. I have also noticed that editors with tendentious account names seem prone to confirmation bias but this is just a working hypothesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Becritical, what you have described is essentially the mission statement of the "Article Rescue Squadron". Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any hint of meaningful coverage, let alone notability. Just a handful of buy here sites. Ebay. Face book. A database. And merger would be a reasonable alternative to deletion if there were sufficient significance. While delete !voters have an obligation to search before saying delete, it would be good if those arguing to keep would help us out with some hints as to where the sourcing can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above I added a citation to a journal which you seem to have missed. The work is also covered in The science fiction and fantasy readers' advisory and The encyclopedia of fantasy which you also seem to have missed. Your search technique seems inadequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the link is not working for me. Can't read the review. Just being reviewed though is not sufficient to establish the notability of a book. Subject doesn't, IMHO, meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Keeping an open mind and awaiting further developments.Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

being reviewed and included in works of librarianship and other reference works is prima facie evidence of notability which satisfies #1 of WP:NBOOK. As it might be sensible to merge with the other works in this series which, together, have even more notability, our searching should consider this possibility too. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - WP:BK has 5 criteria; this novel does not meet any of them. All of the other novels in this series are redirects to the author's page, and no valid rationale has been given as to why this one is any different. Note that criteria #1 says "...with at least some of these works serving a general audience". Two brief reviews in sci-fi/fantasy magazines fail to meet this criteria. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I consider this to be a de facto WP:PROD - i.e, I'll restore on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smartlist

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

Mailing list software. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book called on mailing lists, http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Mailing-Lists-Majordomo-SmartList/dp/156592259X called "Managing Mailing Lists: Majordomo, LISTSERV, Listproc, and SmartList". I thought that since we have a category for "Free mailing lists" and that SmartList was fairly popular that it was worthy of mention in wikipedia. Somewhat confusing is the issue is the fact Smartlist shared a name with a now defunct PalmOS mobile app. Brandorr (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I consider this to be a de facto WP:PROD - i.e, I'll restore on request. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PowerTerm

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

Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if they do not warrant their own articles, i suggest placing a template at the bottom of the terminal emulator and ssh articles listing programmes of this type. google searches for other inter-connectivity, terminal emulation, ssh, and programming topics seem comparable, and show evidence of the package or components being used at large corporations and institutionsS3819 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5600 (Hebrew year)

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st century (Hebrew) (2nd nomination) for my opinions on the matter. As they uncannily take up space in that previous AfD discussion, unlike before, I don't think enumerating the years will be necessary. They stretch from 5600 (Hebrew year)—5800 (Hebrew year) and also, for whatever reason, contain 4965 (Hebrew year), 5573 (Hebrew year), 5825 (Hebrew year), 5853 (Hebrew year), 5881 (Hebrew year), 5909 (Hebrew year), 5937 (Hebrew year), 5965 (Hebrew year), and 5993 (Hebrew year) as well. The relevant templates are Template:Hebrew-year-stub, Template:Description of a Hebrew year, Template:Month Hebrew calendar, Template:Month Hebrew calendar/Help, Template:Month Hebrew calendar - detailed, Template:Footer Hebrew calendar, Template:Category and navigation for a Hebrew year, and Template:Header Hebrew calendar. Like before, they contain no useful information, and are more like repositories of templates if anything. And finally, the categories are Category:Hebrew years and all relevant subcats.

Please delete all of them, so that I don't have to list them again. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. - Vacuous placeholders. Carrite (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Carrite. Are you also nominating 5573 (Hebrew year) or any years over 5800? —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks train. I didn't see when looking through Special:WhatLinksHere... :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also 5825, 5853, and 5881. —Train2104 (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: The above AFD includes several templates, which would properly go to Templates for Deletion. Since the templates were not in use, were only usable on these articles, and since these articles were deleted, I went ahead and deleted the templates as well. If there is concern over this deletion, please let me know. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird Connectivity

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

Software product with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge of content into Open_Text#Offerings - and the same might go for the package's Host Explorer component? AllyD (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if they do not warrant their own articles, i suggest placing a template at the bottom of the terminal emulator and ssh articles listing programmes of this type. google searches for other inter-connectivity, terminal emulation, ssh, and programming topics seem comparable, and show evidence of the package or components being used at large corporations and institutions.S3819 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In its current stub like format I don't see an issue with keeping it. A simple gsearch shows it does exist and the article simply needs to be cited/referenced. Pmedema (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a Windows software package from Open Text Connectivity Solutions Group (formerly Hummingbird Ltd.) which contains various network, internet, and Unix-Windows interoperability tools. This is pure back-office network administration material, and I don't see anything that looks like significant coverage of the sort that would verify that this is an important enough package to warrant a separate article. Books coverage seems to all be trivial mentions in lists of similar software, and News finds mostly release announcements. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None but the nominator opined in favor of deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Obviously he's widely read/quoted in some section of the right-wing blogosphere, but no reliable sources exist, so all Wikipedia can do is list places where his columns have been republished and summarize his views using primary sources. Prezbo (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be regarded as an authority by notable others, and he is widely cited, so I believe notability is sufficiently established. __meco (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically arguing that notability is inherited: if notable people see someone as an authority, they are also notable.Prezbo (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does work that way, doesn't it? Certainly if several notable sources regard someone as important, that would adduce to establish notability. __meco (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added 4 instances of his being cited outside the blogosphere. His POV is referred to both as an example of good reasoning and as an example of extremism, including in scholarly articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the scholarly articles have more than two sentences about him. They can't actually be used to build an article.Prezbo (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do, however, establish notability. However, I disagree. They're all using him as a prominent example, and at least two include a substantial quote. If you meant "can't be used to give us more information on him," then I agree. But that isn't the issue here.Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On:Q

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

The subject is not notable enough to have its own article, as evidenced by its lack of any independent references. Because the subject hasn't been covered by independent sources, the article only serves as advertising for the product--Lester 10:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strip the advertising and POV and merge remaining verifiable information with Quantas. 2 says you, says two 13:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It already has a whole section at Qantas#In-flight entertainment. Even there it lacks secondary sources.--Lester 12:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and merge with Qantas article~~ per 2 and Lester. Non-notable and already has its own section on the Qantas article. --Stickee (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with below, no need to merge. Already undersourced as it is. --Stickee (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered at Qantas. Not sufficiently sourced. Not significant enough for separate article. Dloh cierekim 01:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge with Quantas as suggested above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Dlohcierekim... Not sourced enough and should be just deleted. Pmedema (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Jonathan

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

No real notability shown for this band, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Newcastle Music Directory and Unearthed are not independent. The AU Review and Central Coast Express Advocate coverage is not IMO significant. That leaves no significant coverage and I was unable to find any. Nothing satisfying wp:music. prod removed by articles creator ("Please let me know which references are not reliable and I will scale the article back. Some anonymous users have added information which may not be reliable, should I remove these?", replied at talk page.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep. The band has toured so the aureview article provides them credibility. They are also associated on Philadelphia Grand Jurys page 11:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzychef (talk • contribs) — Jazzychef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Jazzychef (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- - One paragraph on a single support slot is not even close to being near "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". And notability is not inherited from bands they are not associated with. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BAND. Dloh cierekim 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources are non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While not devoid of sourcing, the consensus was that such sources as exist are insufficient to show notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Stote

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

Subject is a non-notable amateur, the claims of grandeur made on the page are not for major oganizations involved in his sport. Likely the author is the subject himself and that this is self promotion. DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it should be noted that the author also removed repeated attempts to tag the article with simple maintenance tags like {{wikify}} and {{uncat}}, even after I pointed out on his talk page that removing maintenance tags without performing the necessary maintenance can be considered vandalism. I actually had to pageprotect it to make him stop. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, girlieman keep - Created by a single purpose account, dollars to donuts by the subject himself. It does indeed seem that Brendan Stote is a professional powerlifter (see this here.) I had no idea there was any such thing. Is that enough to constitute this article being locked over Wikipedia's head for three seconds? Hell, I don't know.. Wikipedia burns the bios of wannabe politicians but lets any baseball player through the door who doesn't put on a cup upside down. I reckon that a professional weightlifter is more like a baseball player than a politician. Terrible article, but I'm not willing to say it can't be fixed. Carrite (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't actually true, WP:ATHLETE has recently been replaced by WP:NSPORTS so now only the top of the top players get in for baseball for example. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tenuous keep~~ switch to delete per Bearcat The claims are sourced, and this looks notable. This desperately needs better sourcing, and I'll bet it's hard to find or just not available. I've removed the bit about the appendix. Not supported by sourcing and not related to his notability. WP:BLP Dloh cierekim 01:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are not reliably referenced to legitimate sources that are independent of the subject, and if you do a Google search you'll find that better sources don't exist. The web page of a non-notable organization that the subject is part of may provide verification that the subject exists, but it does not confer notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a difference between "independent sources" and "sources unconnected with the subject"? Though connected to the subject, the sources are not under his control. If the information in the connected sources were in other sources, I have little doubt the subject would be considered notable. This is why my "keep" was tenuous". However, the precedent in other RFA's I've seen has been that this is too fine a hair to split. I cannot go it with just the sources at present and my sense that subject is notable or "oughta be notable". Dloh cierekim 14:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reading Company. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Entertainment

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

Not notable. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. No indication of notability. Sources provided are: (1) a press release, (2) an SEC filing by the company, (3) an indication that one of their theaters is a venue in a non-notable film festival. SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Keep, very weakly, and cleanup. Merge and redirect to Reading Company. Were this a business founded recently, it would not make the grade on its own merits. But this movie theatre chain is the successor of the very well known Reading Railroad, once they sold off the railroad business and got into other pursuits. And that makes it "interesting" (yeah, I know) and more importantly gives this business some historical resonance it would not have on the strength of what it does today. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's all well and good (never thought tickets to Vampires Suck would be paying off 100 year RR bonds...). However, we don't have any independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did manage to find some sources, mostly behind paywalls, that do confirm that one claim to fame. Knight/Ridder, Philly Inquirer, Reading Eagle (full). That said, these claims are briefly covered in the Reading Company article, and perhaps that's the best place to cover this. Straight Google search will be meaningless, since "reading entertainment" is something else entirely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to represent a world view of the subject, as it primarily focuses on the US. --Klltr (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Reading Company. To think the Reading Railroad has come to this. Not sufficient strength for a stand alone, and as this is a continuation of the subject, it makes sense to continue the story at Reading Company. Dloh cierekim 01:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powder Coating Industry in Pakistan

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

Unsourced, reads like an essay. Was prodded and deleted earlier, but restored as a contested prod. —fetch ·comms 18:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though a fascinating start to an essay, it does not sound like this is a major part of the Pakistani economy. Hard to get a grip on the subject-- transculturalism. Unless it is sourced, and a stronger case made for its role in the economy, it is not notable. Dloh cierekim 01:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very slim chances for producing reliable evidence. Article name sounds incorrect: powder coating is not an independent industry - it is just one of many many manufacturing stages shared by other industries. It's not much different from "Mixing concrete in Pakistan" or "Washing windows in Pakistan". East of Borschov 10:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinion divided on whether importance within the subject's field can make up for a lack of sourcing . Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Occupational Therapy Association

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

Organisation does not meet WP:ORG - the coverage in GNews Archive mainly consists of Press Releases, and "xyz is a member of AOTA" type coverage -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. It's the major national association for a significant branch of medicine. It is nearly 100 years old and has 40,000 members. When it issues a policy position or health recommendation, that position gets reported, and not just by reprinting of press releases; for example, this, this, this. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I've found many sources about their health recommendations, sources on the organization itself are less obvious. PMID 14491211 talks about AOTA's role in encouraging critical thinking about the profession, but even that seems kind of weak to me. If we had to rely on independent sources, I'm not sure that we could write even two sentences about the organization. I wonder whether it might make more sense to merge it into American Journal of Occupational Therapy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the sort of organization that gets news reports. Notable and historic organization. Dloh cierekim 01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: can you find examples that the AOTA has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? How does this organisation meet WP:N? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidently, I have looked at MelanieN's sources above (well, the summaries, as I do not have a subscription with highbeam), and I agree with what WhatamIdoing says - all the articles I could find were about the recommendations they give, but didn't say anything about the organisation itself. "This is not the sort of organization that gets news reports" appears to be correct - but being historic is not a criteria for inclusion - and I can't find evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Lacks any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Appears to violate WP:OR. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major national professional association in its professional field, which in practice = notability DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eben Pagan

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

References to the article are blogs, wikilinks, press releases, dead or passing mentions, subject appears not to be notable--he has written a lot and is sometimes quoted, but I haven't found significant coverage in reliable sources. Article needs a rewrite, but I thought to bring it here first to make sure notability can be established. Nuujinn (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are a few decent and reliable sources present in the article, but additional sources would be nice. I would guess there's probably some unsupported statements in there; I haven't read it completely though. Dawnseeker2000 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Question, which two would you say were the best references? I do think the article needs substantial work, but AFD isn't cleanup, and we can deal with that aspect later. Nuujinn (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Choose any one of the newspaper sources and the Stephenson/Robbins book. Those would be the ones that I would say establish notability. Dawnseeker2000 00:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Stephenson/Robbins book looks like passing mention to me, and the newspaper articles I can reach aren't about him, but rather about the dating techniques he promotes. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a link for the "Dumb approach may work for smart guys" article and it does look like the bulk of what's there is about the dating methods as opposed to Eben himself so, meh, I dunno. I'll stay with my weak keep. Dawnseeker2000 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, discussion is why we're here! Nuujinn (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a long standing piece of spam about a self-promoting, self-published person of no authoritative external note. -Quartermaster (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly what Wikipedia is not: self-promoting spam with few reliable sources and minimal impact/significance Vartanza (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microfinance Focus

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

This is a website that shows up in searches, however I haven't been able to find anything about the site in any searches. Google news searches return this site as the source/publisher for many articles. Most of the references within the article are about the topic of Microfinance, not about the company. The only references about the company are from its own website. Quite a few socks (CUd and blocked) have edited this promotional piece as well as that of the founder Vikash Kumar, repeatedly removing both regular PRODs and BLP-PRODs. —SpacemanSpiff 08:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 08:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reference have been edited and supported by other news sources. this wiki page is similar to other informative microfinance organisations like SKS Microfinance and Microfinance Information Exchange which are not subjected to deletion. no violation of WP:NPOV. 59.99.230.11 (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)wanki[reply]

Keep Page has been edited. waiting for discussion to be closed. Isabel chn (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are passing mention and press releases. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a English-language Microfinance International Online News Media and publication company.... Microfinance Focus releases a monthly e-newsletter, and publishes news and articles daily. In other words, an online publisher of non-notable trade newsletters. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CORP--Sodabottle (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Goodstein1987pp1-2-1] Goodstein 1987a, pp. 1–2

[Snyderman1987-2] Snyderman 1987, pp. 137–144

[Goodstein1986pp1-2-3] Goodstein 1986, pp. 1–2

[Goodstein1988p1-4] Goodstein 1988, p. 1

[Goodstein1987p1-5] Goodstein 1987a, p. 1

[Goodstein1986p2-6] Goodstein 1986, p. 2

[Flynn1987-7] Flynn 1987

[Reznikoff1987-8] Reznikoff 1987, pp. 188–189

[Goodstein1987b-9] Goodstein 1987b

[Snyderman1987p144-10] Snyderman 1987, p. 144

[Snyderman1987p138-11] Snyderman 1987, p. 138

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]